OT: Warning about Norton Internet Security

Client brought in his son's computer today, stating that it could not
access the internet. I confirmed this, and went through the usual
troubleshooting procedures, including adding a NIC. No luck. I went
through Add/Remove Programs, and saw Norton Internet Security, so I
launched the damned thing. It told me the subscription had expired. I
downloaded the latest Norton Removal Tool, removed the Norton crap,
rebooted and voila! I could use IE and Firefox and actually see the
internet through the browsers.

GREAT SECURITY from Norton Internet Security! Your subscription expires
so they make your computer very secure from anything on the internet,
including renewal of Norton Internet Security.

Yet another reason not to buy Symantec consumer products... Ben Myers

"Ben Myers" <> wrote in message
news:gd90m2$6ct$...
> Client brought in his son's computer today, stating that it could not
> access the internet. I confirmed this, and went through the usual
> troubleshooting procedures, including adding a NIC. No luck. I went
> through Add/Remove Programs, and saw Norton Internet Security, so I
> launched the damned thing. It told me the subscription had expired. I
> downloaded the latest Norton Removal Tool, removed the Norton crap,
> rebooted and voila! I could use IE and Firefox and actually see the
> internet through the browsers.
>
> GREAT SECURITY from Norton Internet Security! Your subscription expires
> so they make your computer very secure from anything on the internet,
> including renewal of Norton Internet Security.
>
> Yet another reason not to buy Symantec consumer products... Ben Myers



Heh heh heh.......yeah, it's so good they had to create a utility to remove
it and the eleventy billion other versions of Norton.

It's THAT good!

I thought that "Norton Internet Security" was a warning phrase
already.

How it has managed to get the PC Magazine Editor's Choice is beyond
me. I suspect it's bought and paid for...something they'd probably
deny.

William

William R. Walsh wrote:
> I thought that "Norton Internet Security" was a warning phrase
> already.
>
> How it has managed to get the PC Magazine Editor's Choice is beyond
> me. I suspect it's bought and paid for...something they'd probably
> deny.
>
> William

William,

One thing for sure. PC Magazine does near-zero follow-up on its
Editor's Choices. They are too busy chasing the next new and NEWsworthy
products. New products are news, even if they are still in demo, alpha
or beta stages.

Second thing for sure. Reviewers are under tight, tight deadlines to
produce a quota of words for not a lot of money. A reviewer has no time
to get into all the details such as what happens when a Norton Internet
Subscription expires.

More subtle is the pressure from the people who buy the ads. There has
been a steady erosion of the so-called Chinese wall between ads and
editorial, not just in the computer trade rags, but in all news media.
This is one of the main reasons why there is healthy public distrust for
all media. There are very few media properties with owners who
strenuously insist on separation of editorial from ads, and separation
of factual news content from editorial opinion. (Case in point: Rupert
Murdoch and Fox "News" Channel, brilliantly satirized by Jonathan Pryce
in "The World is Not Enough".)

How do I know all this? If you go and dig out some back issues of PC
Magazine in the 1990's, you will find a lot of my articles: one-off
product reviews, features on C compilers and EISA/ISA/MicroChannel,
benchmark suites, and even one issue with my photo.

Not having the time to do a quality job on a product review or feature
compromised my own integrity, so I abruptly stopped doing magazine
article writing for PC Mag and several others. There were other family
circumstances that contributed to the decision and one hardware vendor
even offered me a block of the company stock. It also stuck in my craw
that all the computer trade rags continue(d) to glibly chase the next
new betaware from Microsoft. Of all the companies in the computer
industry, Microsoft and Oracle continue to have undue influence on
editorial content, enough to make me gag if I think about it for too
long. So, yes, the trade rags are bought and paid for... by Micro$oft.
To a lesser extent by Dell and HP... Ben Myers

just count the number of pages of advertisements in pc magazine bought by
symantec, then you will understand what it is the editors choice.

"William R. Walsh" <> wrote in message
news:ea296e0d-06c8-4fff-a5e5-...
>I thought that "Norton Internet Security" was a warning phrase
> already.
>
> How it has managed to get the PC Magazine Editor's Choice is beyond
> me. I suspect it's bought and paid for...something they'd probably
> deny.
>
> William

journey wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:26:57 -0400, Ben Myers <>
> wrote:
>
> >Client brought in his son's computer today, stating that it could not
> >access the internet. I confirmed this, and went through the usual
> >troubleshooting procedures, including adding a NIC. No luck. I went
> >through Add/Remove Programs, and saw Norton Internet Security, so I
> >launched the damned thing. It told me the subscription had expired. I
> >downloaded the latest Norton Removal Tool, removed the Norton crap,
> >rebooted and voila! I could use IE and Firefox and actually see the
> >internet through the browsers.
> >
> >GREAT SECURITY from Norton Internet Security! Your subscription expires
> >so they make your computer very secure from anything on the internet,
> >including renewal of Norton Internet Security.
> >
> >Yet another reason not to buy Symantec consumer products... Ben Myers
>
> Kaspersky Internet Security has exceeded my expectations. The $79 for
> 3 Windows licenses was money well spent, but may be steep if one is
> only licensing one computer.

My experience with PC's is only from 1992 so it will pale in comparison
to the collective knowledge on this NG but I've never used anti-virus
software and only use Zonealarm as the gateway guardian. Never had a
virus invade the PC, had a few "fools" attempt to send me one via spam,
but they never succeed in launching the virus. I'm sure some folks need
the protection (from themselves) but it seems that many problems are
indeed caused by the PC's owner not using common sense when downloading
or clicking on attachments or running software and OS's that are
susceptible to infection. I'd still use Win 3.1 if it weren't for the
old modem required to get it on line, only use new OS's when it's the
local college library's PC (I'm sure they're up to date on virus
protection). Not knocking anyone (a bit of sarcasm is there however) but
the need to upgrade to the latest of everything is simply making
Corporate America richer and end users poorer. Now let me crawl back
"under" the soapbox (to avoid all the bricks being tossed my way by NG
readers who may not agree with me).

Anyone wrote:
> journey wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:26:57 -0400, Ben Myers <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Client brought in his son's computer today, stating that it could not
>>> access the internet. I confirmed this, and went through the usual
>>> troubleshooting procedures, including adding a NIC. No luck. I went
>>> through Add/Remove Programs, and saw Norton Internet Security, so I
>>> launched the damned thing. It told me the subscription had expired. I
>>> downloaded the latest Norton Removal Tool, removed the Norton crap,
>>> rebooted and voila! I could use IE and Firefox and actually see the
>>> internet through the browsers.
>>>
>>> GREAT SECURITY from Norton Internet Security! Your subscription expires
>>> so they make your computer very secure from anything on the internet,
>>> including renewal of Norton Internet Security.
>>>
>>> Yet another reason not to buy Symantec consumer products... Ben Myers
>> Kaspersky Internet Security has exceeded my expectations. The $79 for
>> 3 Windows licenses was money well spent, but may be steep if one is
>> only licensing one computer.
>
> My experience with PC's is only from 1992 so it will pale in comparison
> to the collective knowledge on this NG but I've never used anti-virus
> software and only use Zonealarm as the gateway guardian. Never had a
> virus invade the PC, had a few "fools" attempt to send me one via spam,
> but they never succeed in launching the virus. I'm sure some folks need
> the protection (from themselves) but it seems that many problems are
> indeed caused by the PC's owner not using common sense when downloading
> or clicking on attachments or running software and OS's that are
> susceptible to infection. I'd still use Win 3.1 if it weren't for the
> old modem required to get it on line, only use new OS's when it's the
> local college library's PC (I'm sure they're up to date on virus
> protection). Not knocking anyone (a bit of sarcasm is there however) but
> the need to upgrade to the latest of everything is simply making
> Corporate America richer and end users poorer. Now let me crawl back
> "under" the soapbox (to avoid all the bricks being tossed my way by NG
> readers who may not agree with me).

Well, with a supported network card, you could upgrade to Windows for
Workgroups 3.11, use a whopping 64MB and still go on line... Ben Myers

journey wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:06:47 GMT, Anyone <> wrote:
>
> >My experience with PC's is only from 1992 so it will pale in comparison
> >to the collective knowledge on this NG but I've never used anti-virus
> >software and only use Zonealarm as the gateway guardian. Never had a
> >virus invade the PC,
>
> How do you know if you've never had a virus (or Trojan, Spyware) if
> you don't have the software protection that would detect it?

PC never, ever, ever acted up, no requests for a browser to go online or
any auto dial apps taking control, etc... No missing files, no altered
files, never opened .exe's on its own, I never open anything in my email
window unless it's text, etc... and since my everyday browsers are
hopelessly outdated Netscape 3, Opera 4, I can't even run Java or Java
script, (w/o them crashing) or flash and whatever bells and whistles are
attached to today's hottest browsers which help make them very
vunerable. Besides who wants to bother messing up a Windows 95 system?
when XP and Vista have tens of millions of users waiting to have their
systems infected

Thanks for the journey into the realm of possible infections, but it
ain't gonna happen unless you're looking for love in all the wrong
places. I learned a lesson from a coworker who had to have his OS
reloaded almost monthly due to all the infections his kids would
download into it - and that was 1999, heaven knows how bad things are
today. He obviously needed anti-virus software or maybe better still,
ban his kids from using his PC.

RnR wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:17:51 GMT, Anyone <> wrote:
>
> >journey wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:06:47 GMT, Anyone <> wrote:
> >>
> >> >My experience with PC's is only from 1992 so it will pale in comparison
> >> >to the collective knowledge on this NG but I've never used anti-virus
> >> >software and only use Zonealarm as the gateway guardian. Never had a
> >> >virus invade the PC,
> >>
> >> How do you know if you've never had a virus (or Trojan, Spyware) if
> >> you don't have the software protection that would detect it?
> >
> >PC never, ever, ever acted up, no requests for a browser to go online or
> >any auto dial apps taking control, etc... No missing files, no altered
> >files, never opened .exe's on its own, I never open anything in my email
> >window unless it's text, etc... and since my everyday browsers are
> >hopelessly outdated Netscape 3, Opera 4, I can't even run Java or Java
> >script, (w/o them crashing) or flash and whatever bells and whistles are
> >attached to today's hottest browsers which help make them very
> >vunerable. Besides who wants to bother messing up a Windows 95 system?
> >when XP and Vista have tens of millions of users waiting to have their
> >systems infected
> >
> >Thanks for the journey into the realm of possible infections, but it
> >ain't gonna happen unless you're looking for love in all the wrong
> >places. I learned a lesson from a coworker who had to have his OS
> >reloaded almost monthly due to all the infections his kids would
> >download into it - and that was 1999, heaven knows how bad things are
> >today. He obviously needed anti-virus software or maybe better still,
> >ban his kids from using his PC.
>
> With all due respect, I'm glad this works for you but I don't think
> staying behind in technology is the answer for many. Off the top of
> my head, this might be okay for retirees who don't need newer software
> nor much on line access but for students and employed people, they
> may have no choice because they may do some work at home. That work
> may require a newer OS to run their apps and they may need on line
> access a lot. So while I agree your method works, I can't recomend
> it for many.

That could be a fly in the ointment. Employed folk hopefully use the
company PC not their own since they may be forced to read email that is
infected, with the software the company requires them to use. Students
are probably the easiest target for those who wish to infect PC's,
endless downloads of garbage: music, video, games, email, etc... I know,
I'm taking classes at a local college and the students are totally
CLUELESS when it comes to common sense things, heaven help Corporate
Amerika when they go job hunting.

BTW, my laptop with 2K and XP, has no safeguards other than Zonealarm.
Four yrs occassional online use, no viruses, etc... But then I do not
visit every site and download everything, no Java, no flash, no I.E.,
etc... I assume even the most current anti-virus software "is not"
always going to help the person who can't help themself and downloads
the latest of whatever the Net has to offer.

What version of ZoneAlarm? Is it an older freeware version?
I'm using Kerio's older freeware version.

p_z