Norton Antivirus

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
A friend told me that Norton fixes itself, but on my computer it's not
fixing itself.  I went through the web site fix thing and when it got to the
end, there was a message that I needed to contact the Norton web site's
webmaster of all things.   So I'm more than a little frustrated.  It doesn't
expire until May 2007, so I hate to purchase a new version.

When I try to do a Norton LiveUpdate, I get this message regarding the
Norton AntiVirus Virus Definitions:
         U1875:  This update failed during its preprocessing welcome text
phase

I don't know what to do.  Can you help me with this problem?  Do you need
any more information to be able to help me?





Re: Norton Antivirus

Is there any difference between the latest versions of Norton Antivirus, and
older versions (I have NAV 2002) with all the updates downloaded and installed?
(Fully licenced for updates of course). The thing that makes me ask is the
latest "scare" on problems with NAV : -

http://news.com.com/Symantec+details+flaws+in+its+antivirus+software/2100-1002_3-5646871.html



Re: Norton Antivirus

Johnie wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

yes, there's a big difference... older engines can't make effective use
of virus signatures written for newer engines... nav2002 can't protect
you from the same amount of viruses as a more recent version regardless
of what signature updates you've applied...

--
"we are the revenants
and we will rise up from the dead
we become the living
we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath"

Re: Norton Antivirus

wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Does Norton not update the engine component via live update?
--

Regards,
Ian Kenefick
www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

Re: Norton Antivirus

Ian JP Kenefick wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

some engine updates may be distributed that way, but i don't know if
all are... also symantec ended support for nav2002 already
(http://www.symantec.com/techsupp/nav/discontinued.html ) so is quite
probable that nav2002 *can't* be brought up to the current engine this
way...

--
"we are the revenants
and we will rise up from the dead
we become the living
we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath"

Re: Norton Antivirus

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

kurt wismer wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

True if you go back as far as pre-200x versions of Norton Antivirus, I believe.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Please provide proof of such a statement. If I compare my Norton Antivirus
2002 with several clients' later versions they all say they protect against
 exactly the same number of viruses.


Yours,

Adam Piggott,
Proprietor,
Proactive Services (Computing).

- --
Please replace dot invalid with dot uk to email me.
Apply personally for PGP public key.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCUB3E7uRVdtPsXDkRAnW2AKCWVh0aaBfd0d8IEOaHMXxYVbQExACeK6LE
zIphgcgFRStuCY9tZG0Voo4=
=/CZc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Norton Antivirus

Adam Piggott wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

no, it's true for all versions... older engines cannot make use of
signatures written in such a way as to make use of the capabilities of
newer engines... the newer engines are backwards compatible so they can
use the old signatures, but you don't really expect the old engines to
be forwards compatible, do you?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

all that is showing is the number of viruses it has signatures for, not
the number it can actually use...

--
"we are the revenants
and we will rise up from the dead
we become the living
we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath"

Re: Norton Antivirus

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

kurt wismer wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Newer engines are backwards compatible with old virus definitions? What
would be the point of that?

I don't expect anything. I am telling you that Symantec's method of
supplying virus definitions support back to at least NAV 2000.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Then explain to me why LiveUpdate still seems to incessantly send me
updates which I cannot use, and how many viruses Norton Antivirus 2002 does
actually protect against. Also while you're at it, why they would bother
quoting such a number when it is incorrect, and why Symantec still offer me
subscription updates when the virus definitions are useless, according to
your statements.

I cannot see at:
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/defs.download.html
(Symantec Security Response - Virus Definitions Download Page)
...any mention to version-specific definition files whatsoever.

I cannot find any mention, anywhere, of what version of the software each
virus definition release supports and does not. The reason for this is
because they are not version-specific.

Thank you for the discussion, but I'm not interested in commenting further
on this particular topic. I'm afraid you are incorrect.

Yours,


Adam.

- --
Please replace dot invalid with dot uk to email me.
Apply personally for PGP public key.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCUFx97uRVdtPsXDkRAsuuAKCKa8s81UM7GT4PPm+I7FJ4AjeYegCgnQ9u
M/uBMg7KtU/RrhwtWhNtg+A=
=xzAJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Norton Antivirus


Quoted text here. Click to load it
updates
effective use
Antivirus, I
of
can
to
What
not
does
bother
offer me
to
each
further

I'm using NAV 5.0 and still get definitions. After updating I get a
message about how I have the most up to date protection against vuruses
or some such balderdash. It doesn't mean I believe them, and neither
should you. Consider a metamorphic virus that requires the scanner
engine to emulate an environment for more cycles (or more nearly
perfect) than any previous metamorphic virus - the definition data is
pretty much useless if the engine is incapable of emulating long enough
or with enough perfection. The emulation an AV uses is only as complete
as it needs to be to be able to function against what it expects to be
able to find - otherwise it would be providing as nearly perfect an
emulated encironment as is possible with the current 'state of the art'
level of emulation and would be much more costly and resource intensive.

...but I don't want to talk about it either.   :OP



Re: Norton Antivirus

Adam Piggott wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

to avoid having to rewrite 100,000 virus signatures every time the
engine is tweaked...

Quoted text here. Click to load it

and i'm telling you that you're misinterpreting what you've read... the
signature file format hasn't changed, but the engine has... the engine
has to be updated to keep up with new virus techniques... virus
signatures only tell the scanner what to look for, not how to look for
it... signatures written for the types of viruses that prompt the
engine upgrades, while readable by older engines, are not fully usable
by older engines - if they were there wouldn't be a need for an engine
upgrade...

Quoted text here. Click to load it

many of them you can use, just not all of them...

Quoted text here. Click to load it

i don't know or care what the actual number is...

Quoted text here. Click to load it

because when nav2002 was the current engine it *was* correct...

Quoted text here. Click to load it

i never said the updates were entirely worthless, i said signatures
written for newer engines can't be properly used by older engines...

Quoted text here. Click to load it

because they expect their users to always use the latest version...

Quoted text here. Click to load it

well, i think it's crystal clear from
http://www.symantec.com/techsupp/nav/discontinued.html that you can no
longer expect the virus definitions to support nav2002...

Quoted text here. Click to load it

fine with me... if you can't recognize when something is axiomatically
true you can just go on using decrepit virus scanners and suffer the
consequences of your false sense of security...

--
"we are the revenants
and we will rise up from the dead
we become the living
we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath"

Re: Norton Antivirus

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Johnie wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://news.com.com/Symantec+details+flaws+in+its+antivirus+software/2100-1002_3-5646871.html

I am using Norton Antivirus 2002 and am still receiving virus definition
updates.

I believe the newer versions also support removal and real-time protection
of spyware and diallers etc.

If you RTFA mentioned in the URL you posted, you will see that the
vulnerability is only said to affect versions 2004 and 2005.


Regards,


Adam Piggott,
Proprietor,
Proactive Services (Computing).

- --
Please replace dot invalid with dot uk to email me.
Apply personally for PGP public key.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCUBzl7uRVdtPsXDkRAunMAJ4oc44g26qyJHbufcp2iryXFcVUGACfd5ic
aNvPhWB8JrMGbRQYC30zGmI=
=BW/D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Norton Antivirus


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Go here : (and follow the directions)
http://symantec.atgnow.com/consumer/searchResults.do?directPost=1&pcode=all&mini_version=all&returnNav=consumer.html&searchText=lu1875



Re: Norton Antivirus

If I have paid for Norton, would I have to purchase a new version?

Quoted text here. Click to load it
site's
need
http://symantec.atgnow.com/consumer/searchResults.do?directPost=1&pcode=all &
mini_version=all&returnNav=consumer.html&searchText=lu1875
Quoted text here. Click to load it



Re: Norton Antivirus


Quoted text here. Click to load it

If your version, as you indicated, is good until May 2007, then you don't
have to buy it again.
(In May 2007 you can elect to renew the current Norton a/v)
If you followed the link, details on how to fix your "U1875" error are
explained there.
HTH

Quoted text here. Click to load it



Re: Norton Antivirus

The fix you sent me to worked.  I had something like 19 updates to do so
that took a long time and finally I ran a scan and went to bed.

Thank you so much.  It is a huge relief to have the Norton working again.

I hear so many people that know about computers say they don't like Norton
AntiVirus.  Can you tell me what is your reason for not "liking" it.  In
May, my subscription expires and I need to renew or switch to something
else.  I appreciate your input when you have time.

Thank you, again.


Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://symantec.atgnow.com/consumer/searchResults.do?directPost=1&pcode=all&mini_version=all&returnNav=consumer.html&searchText=lu1875
Quoted text here. Click to load it



Re: Norton Antivirus


Quoted text here. Click to load it
<snip>

Never stated that I didn't like Norton A/V.
I use it on two PCs (WinXP) and have been using Norton A/v since version 4
on different PCs.
(I turn off e-mail scanning and auto update)
I also use Zone Alarm pro for a firewall, and NetBui for my home network.
On my WinME and Win98SE PCs I use AVG Free as I don't access the web much
using them.
Many people don't like Norton, because it supposedly uses too much of a PC
resources, and/or reacts badly with some software.

Symantec seems to suffer tall poppy syndrome (like Microsoft) in some
peoples opinion.  :-)



Re: Norton Antivirus

Why do I hate Norton?
Let me count the reasons why..... (in no particular order)
1) Norton is the ONLY AV that requires to be reinstalled (almost) every time
you are forced to use System Restore
2) Norton has the worst record in existence for leaving trash behind in the
registry and elsewhere when you uninstall it - meaning that reinstalls
frequently fail (rumour has it that they *may* have fixed that in NAV2006)
3) Symantec LiveUpdate is responsible for major heartache in Win9x systems
4) Symantec LiveUpdate refuses to even attempt to find out what your current
internet connection is, and insists on attempting to connect via the lowest
technology available to IE - so if you have DUN working, and you're actually
connected via a router/Ethernet connection, LU is convinced there's not
Internet available, and you have to remove all DUN connections before LU
works!
5) Norton/Symantec Software is responsible for more posts to my 'home'
newsgroups (Windows ME groups on the MS servers) than any other software
house (excluding MS) - and probably more than every other software house put
together!
6) Issues raised with Norton in respect of their software are never followed
by proper fixes - merely workarounds. A number of times, MS has actually had
to make a change in the OS so that Windows users aren't so badly affected by
Symantec programming errors.
7) The Uninstaller for Symantec products are all linked - and it's a bitch
to get them right - and even when you do get them right, they rarely remove
everything. -Even running the special removal apps from Symantec doesn't
remove everything.
8) I get bored trying to explain why I hate Norton

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Site Timeline