Talk:Norton AntiVirus/Archive 3

Merge PIFTS.exe
Seems to like there's no need for a separate article on PIFTS.exe. The contents of PIFTS.exe and Norton AntiVirus are almost identical. Astronaut (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge it or link it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.128.54.167 (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There are (somewhat believable) accusations that the coverup extends beyond Norton (including digg and Google). If that is true, then the total controversy (properly researched and sourced) is only tangentially related to Norton AntiVirus, and rightfully belongs in a separate article. If no outside controversy is actually substantiated, then the articles should be merged. This is still a very active topic at the moment; I'd say this merge discussion is about a week premature. –  7 4   20:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Please do not edit my posts; if I'd wanted to emphasize "I disagree" then I would have done so. Thanks. –   7 4   21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Lets see where this goes first. Thedarxide (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait and See Lets wait and see if this is notable or if it blows over in a few days before we do anything. --Arnos78 (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Expand article, then merge. The article needs to be expanded. Also needs clarification. First reading it, it sounded like NAV blocked pifts ... however NAV does not have a firewall. The person who created the article also was confused, looking at the revision history. TechOutsider (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
 * PIFTS is part of NAV, it was only because 3rd party firewalls blocked it that people noticed. Thedarxide (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge (or delete): This needs much, much better sourcing than it currently has (mostly blogs and sites that don't appear to be reliable) and it already smacks of news reporting. DP 76764  (Talk) 21:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is now word from Symantec, as well as Sophos. The Washington Post is reliable, and I would argue that the ISC is as well.  Given the volume of reporting, I'd say this is a notable incident, but if it dies off from today then merge the lot Thedarxide (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge (or delete): I think there's some value in the article but it needs to be pointed more at the way Norton handled it. ie. how they censored any discussion on their forums making people think it was a cover up of malware then left it so long that it was reported in the media before finally issuing a statement. Although I suspect in a week's time it won't be of any interest to anyone. Dullus (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit has removed mention of PIFTS.exe from this article, leaving the separate article effectively orphaned. I've reverted that edit for the time being (until consensus is reached). Astronaut (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to merge it. But would the only problem is that the PIFTS file was pushed to people running NAV and NIS as far as I know so perhaps both articles would have a mention of it, imo it doesn't warrant an article of it's own. Jamshud (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The excitement seems to have died with no further allegations being substantiated. I believe a Merge and Redirect are now appropriate. –  7 4   00:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree It's seems to have blown over now --Arnos78 (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone? It's been merged, for a couple days now by a user. Any last comments? Any Oppose votes? Agree/Merge voters? If not, then I will be closing this discussion. TechOutsider (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Trojan Horse
In the article it says "Updates kill legitimate software On the January 28, 2010 Symantec Anti-virus marked Spotify as a Trojan horse disabling the software across millions of PCs"

Trojan horse links to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_horse", I think it should link to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_horse_(computing)". The reader would be more interested in knowing about the computer signification of trojan horse rather than the historical one, I think.

That In mind, I have no idea how to edit a wiki page beyond grammar mistakes, so someone should do this. 156.34.15.180 (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * all the way from May 2010 and no one's done it yet? Is wiki under an avalanche? It's done now; good catch ;) (forgive lack of log-in) 71.51.184.220 (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC) user:VulpineLady

Recent Edits Made by Jacob Poon
See this edit and this edit by User:Jacob Poon. When I first starting editing Norton AntiVirus, there was no information about versions prior to 2006, probably due to a lack of reliable sources; I can't seem to find any. If the information is to be added, I think there should just be one section titled '2006 and Previous' or divided up into at most two subsections due to a lack of actual information. TechOutsider (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Aggressive Subscription Marketing
This edit seems to be nonconstructive. The user/IP address never provided one reference. I gave him a week to cough up the reference. However, he/she never did and claims references were provided. Again, the section is unreferenced and will be removed one week from the date of this message. TechOutsider (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Apparent Norton Antivirus war
I am massively less familiar than you with the workings of editing wikipedia. I would like to bring this issue to some sort of dispute resolution process, but am uncertain how to go about it. I did try, by following the "talk" link.

However it isn't a promising start for any resolution, that you respond by assuming I'm someone who changes my IP address in some sinister fashion. I have never even heard the term "IP hopper" before this minute. I am in fact just an ordinary UK citizen who has recently (and only once, ever) changed internet provider. I previously had a username HotelNewHampshire, which may still have my personal details, but have found problems logging in.

It is an extraordinarily aggressive and inappropriate step in response to an attempted negotiation to seek to block my address. It is as if, in real life you responded to a civilised approach by seeking to have me arrested. This is my permanent address - with, if it helps, O2. I don't believe you would act that way in person, but people feel able to behave differently online.

The disputed entry in the article, is something I feel fairly strongly about, because I feel Symantec are a company who should not have to resort to such aggressive sales measures. The truth of the entry is manifestly verifiable. I don't know what wikipedia's rules are on this, but I would very much like some direct feedback from them on this specific matter, so that it is clear just what sort of reference they do require in such a case.

It was interesting to discover, initially, that every time I entered the reference to the matter on Symantec's own page, I then discovered the page had been moved. The continual deletion of this entry feels rather like the same thing.

I say again, I would like to resolve this issue one way or the other, and without a war. Given that Wikipedia aims to provide completeness and accuracy in its articles, I hope it can find a way to make that possible in this case. Perhaps the ideal way, however, would be for Symantec would be to withdraw the offending screen altogether.
 * I also feel strongly about this, because the behaviour is well known enough to be verifiable, but the source really is required in order to prove criticism. There are plenty of references to users complaining, but it really needs to be on a good quality IT news site.  I do, however, want to see the information included  Thedarxide (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have found one possible source detailing the behavior. The link is provided here. I have gone through the Google news archives since Y2K and only found this source. TechOutsider (talk • contribs) 04:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, don't get upset cuz he called you an "IP". For reasons that are less than clear to me, many users deem an IP edit to be "anonymous" and an account edit to not be, despite the former being far more transparent.  Accordingly, they commonly point out the fact that the edit was from an "anonymous" user- seemingly to disparge the credibility of the edit.  It doesn't seems to matter if the person had been editing with that IP on wikipedia for a year, they're still considered suspect while the guy who made a new account today isn't.  Don't think he was making an allegation against you, its common, if strange, behavior.  Anyways, it seems your probably wrong.  Its not that you can't add that information, its that you can't maintain it in the fact of objection without a citation (and really shouldn't add it at all without something supporting it substantially).  That's just how the rules work, and it makes sense. --Δζ (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

PIFTs rumors
User:Menwith was right. The refs don't help. The first sentence about Africa is supported only by one guy's speculation, a guy whose blurb says "he is fascinated by the technical aspects of computers", not that he knows a damn thing about them. And all he says is that it's "at least one theory ". The second is from a journalist. Give me a break. And even she says "wildly speculated" where this article has "speculated", as if speculation by unnamed idiots was news either way. Let's have some facts, please. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, the reference provided was simply a blog post. However, please keep a clam head when discussing matters. TechOutsider (talk • contribs) 14:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My head is always clam (insert smiley of your choice). I wasn't denigrating anyone but journalists and would-be journalists, though. Everyone is trying their best to make Wikipedia admirable, and the evolution of this article is progressing the way it's supposed to. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * =) In the post, the author stated several theories of what PIFTS was or stood for. The theories are not attributed to anyone. Bold claims require big sources. TechOutsider (talk • contribs) 04:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of editing and adding image
Purpose of my edits in the page"Norton Antivirus"


 * To update the contents

RE: magic lantern and claim that symantec and other major antivirus vendors have whitelisted the keylogger
Presently the article claims symantec and other major antivirus vendors have whitelisted the magic lantern keylogger (of concern to various people for reason listed in the article). The only citation supporting the claim that symantec isn't alone in whitelisting matgic lantern is the kapersky article which names mcafee. Mcaffee, however; has denied cooperation and whitelisting and there seems no solid evidence to the contrary. " See: http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/11/48648  This being the case, the only company whitelisting/cooperating with the magic lantern program, so far as the citations show, is Symantec.    If anyone has information which can support the present language, feel free to provide it.   Is their any objection to modifying the language in the article to remove the reference to other major antivirus vendors?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Δζ (talk • contribs) 17:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I brought up the same issue when Norton Internet Security was a featured article candidate --HamburgerRadio (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You bring up good points. It does seem to me at first glance that there's enough information to warrant mention of Symantec regarding magic lantern, though the percise langauge should be carefully crafted to avoid overstating the claims of the sources.  At the minimum, there's reports of Symantec representatives stating that if a magic lantern program existed that they would proactively seek to whitelist it, while claiming they could distinguish between government and non-government users, the later point seeming suspect and something I recall reading criticism of in another news story.  See:  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/11/27/av_vendors_split_over_fbi/.   Should Mcafee be mentioned at all in the face of their denial and the hazy nature of the claims (that I know of) regarding them?  It certainly seems Symantec is the most clearly-positioned in publicly confirming they would take positive action to whitelist a magic-lantern type program.--Δζ (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as far as I know, there's still no public knowledge on which antivirus products really detect Magic Lantern. So essentially it's evaluating products based on who talks tough in front of the media. PR departments might not know information techies know. Techies might think they know what would happen, but get overruled by management. Consider that any actual information exchange or agreement would almost certainly be under a non-disclosure agreement; those most likely to say something are those least likely to be in the loop. It's even possible it's a ploy; get the software under the premise of whitelisting, then actually blacklist it. (All of the above could be applicable to Symantec, or Mcafee or any other antivirus company). The most we can accurately say is that there was a debate, but no public knowledge of what actually happened, if anything. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the sources that are currently listed in the article, I don't think we should be talking about Magic Lantern or similar systems in the present tens - all but one of the references date to 2001/2002, the exception being a cnet article from 2007, which says "A CNET News.com survey of 13 leading antispyware vendors found that not one company acknowledged cooperating unofficially with government agencies. Some, however, indicated that they would not alert customers to the presence of fedware if they were ordered by a court to remain quiet." On the basis of these sources, I don't we can claim that Symantec (or anyone else) is whitelisting Magic Lantern-esque software. -- AJR | Talk 11:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you, and I was intending to add more relevant sources. We should both use the past tense and report the debate, the concerns, and the actual statements of Symantec employees and why these caused concern, provided appropriate sources are found.  I agree it would be unsupportable to claim Norton is whitelisting magic lantern as their is no good source for that claim (and I have no idea).  I would simply report the claims of the sources, mention that Symantec employees claim a willingness to whitelist similar programs, and mention any concerns/debates/effects evidenced in notable sources.  I think the best thing to do is simply report the evidence and the controversy, and I would favor excluding mcafee untill a better source comes along, or mentioning them and their denial.--Δζ (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

May 2010: broken updates for NAV 2002/2003
In May 2010, reports started to appear on the Symantec user forum that the virus definition updates after May 10th were incompatible with Norton AntiVirus 2002 and 2003. The updates are installed when LiveUpdate is run, but after that, AutoProtect is switched off, and trying to run a scan results in an error message. It is unclear whether this signifies the end of virus definition update support for NAV 2002/2003, or whether it is a bug that will be fixed in later updates. This generic message, posted by a Symantec employee, seems to suggest the former: http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Internet-Security-Norton/Older-Versions-of-NAV-NIS-Suddenly-Inoperable/td-p/232965 Many users on the forum have complained that if updates no longer work with a certain version of NAV, then the update should not be installed automatically on those versions, and users should be warned about this. As it is, many users may be no longer protected against viruses without being aware of this. I have not found any reference to this on "reputable news or tech sites", but I thought I'd post this on the talk page, so the regular contributors can keep an eye on this, and maybe add information about it to the article once it becomes available. --84.198.246.199 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Large update files
In the article, thought I might find criticisms of the huge virus def files that are being downloaded. This is for Norton 2006: The files are something like 130MB, and they download 3 or 4 times a day. That'll fill up even a large hard drive pretty soon. Older virus def files never seem to be deleted. Myrvin (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Does upgrading help? -- Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions )    02:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes thanks - done it. All the huge files were deleted automatically. Myrvin (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit with NIS article
Can someone peruse both articles and update them accordingly? It seems this article is lagging behind that article. -- Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions )   → To be or not to be? 01:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Updates by BorisVasilev
While reading through the article with a self-admitted anti-Symantec bias (I don't like them one bit but I can try to be objective) I noticed the use of the phrase "Disadvantages of older versions before 2009" as a section header. Reading through the subsection, I wondered why it was written to be pre-2009. It sounded like a marketing executive trying to show that the new product is better. I went through the history and found who put that line in, one BorisVasilev22 who also put in the section "Norton vs others" whose current text is

"Performance and protection capabilites

From the 2009 to 2012 editions, Symantec made huge changes to their products' speed and performance. Norton products now have only 2 running processes, using about 15 mb of RAM.[37] According to PassMark Security Benchmark 2012 Norton AntiVirus and Norton Internet Security are the lightest suites available. Av-comparatives.org also tested these products and give similar results.[38] PCMag recognises 2011 and 2012 lines as the fastest and strongest in protection.[39] PCWorld's tests of security software put Norton Internet Security 2009 on the 1-st place.[40] In 2011's test of PCWorld Norton Internet Security was the winner. Av-test.org certifies Norton, putting it on a second place after BitDefender.[41]. Many other reputable sources like Dennis Technology Labs confirm the performance and effectivness of Norton 2011 and 2012 lines.[42]"

The entire section is incredibly pro-Symantec and I started through the references. The PassMark reference (37) holds as true, sort of. The 15 mb claim is not in the reference, and I'm going to change that to what it is. Also, the whole reference is a study funded by Symantec corp (notice in the data that all Symantec listings are highlighted and it specifies Symantec funding at the end) which makes it suspect, at least in my eyes. Symantec also wrote some of the test scripts for use in the test, which could very easily cause bad data. Also, a paper by PassMark rated another program far above Symantec; Webroot. And guess who funded that paper? Webroot. (http://www.webroot.com/shared/pdf/Webroot_SecureAnywhere_vs_antivirus_competitors_27Sept2011.pdf)

The second reference does not hold the claims; " Av-comparatives.org also tested these products and give similar results.[38]" is not held up in the Av-comparatives paper. In that paper, different results were found. In the conclusion, the Av-comparatives paper grouped all products tested into three categories, and advised users to consider products of the same category to be equal quality. Symantec was rated in the highest category, along with 9 other Internet security programs, including the one rated lowest by the Passmark study (also suspect). That study was not funded by Symantec and I consider it to be more reliable, although I'm not a fan of their methodology. PCMag's article seems to be a well-written, glowing review of Norton, speaking so highly of protocols that give me creeps. I can't reputably disagree with the article, however. The Av-test page rates two people above Norton, across all three categories, rather than one as previously claimed. Finally, the Dennis Technology Labs also rated Symantec as best, and was also funded by Symantec.

Here's how I would write this section:

"Performance and protection capabilities

From the 2009 to 2012 editions, Symantec made changes to improve their products' speed and performance. Norton products have less running processes, using about 24 mb of RAM.[37] According to a study funded by Symantec, the PassMark Security Benchmark 2012 stated that Norton AntiVirus and Norton Internet Security are the lightest suites available. Av-comparatives.org also rated Norton Internet Security to be among the lightest suites of Internet security programs.[38] PCMag recognises 2011 and 2012 lines as the fastest and strongest in protection.[39] PCWorld's tests of security software put Norton Internet Security 2009 in 1st place.[40] Av-test.org certifies Norton, putting it on a third place after BitDefender[41] and F-Secure. Another study paid for by Symantec from Dennis Technology Labs confirms the performance and effectiveness of the Norton 2011 and 2012 lines.[42]"

I'll probably wander back around in a week or so if nobody has any objections and make the change. Or maybe I'll forget to. At least now all this is out there for everyone else to look at. --Waladil (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove PIFTS.EXE
The story of PIFTS.EXE seems incredibly trivial and nearly irrelevant. A separate page on this is up for deletion (Articles for deletion/PIFTS.exe) and a commenter there noted that it was originally merged here, and the redirect was later reverted by an IP editor, so WP:Merge and Delete requires the page remain as a redirect.

Instead, I think the section should be removed from this page, and the PIFTS.EXE article can then be deleted. PIFTS.EXE was a forgettable non-notable event, and the worst part of a bloated out-of-control criticism section. Should the section be deleted? D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  12:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: such cases should be recorded. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: We will probably revisit the issue in a few years Makyen (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

WhiteSmoke (Virus)
Does anyone know why WhiteSmoke (Virus) redirects to this article? There is no mention of it in the text, nor does there seem to have been any at the time that redirect page was created. Is it some sort of underhand advertising? 78.73.90.148 (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing versions?
It seems like there is a giant gap in the history of norton AV on this page. It goes from version 5, then straight to version 2006. I'm running version 2001 right now, where are all of the others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.201.54 (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Info about version 10 please?
I still have a lot of computers with Norton AV 10 at the NFP I work for as an IT Tech Support agent, I'd like to know more about it because they did buy a license.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.237.59.2 (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe they out did the license in a new version of the software, I might be wrong but worth checking into.--Oxforduniversity1 (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

nortan
I bought your product yesterday ! But it is not coming up! Where is it ?wank_ken@yahoo.com198.210.66.155 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have g just added archive links to 1 one external link on Norton AntiVirus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090316031124/http://www.symantec.com:80/home_homeoffice/support/special/upgrade2007/vista/select_product.jsp?site=nuc to http://www.symantec.com/home_homeoffice/support/special/upgrade2007/vista/select_product.jsp?site=nuc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)