1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

McAfee apologizes for crippling PCs with bad update

Discussion in 'Laptops' started by BillW50, Apr 26, 2010.

  1. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    BillW50, Apr 26, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. BillW50

    CJB Guest

    On Apr 26, 1:12 pm, "BillW50" <> wrote:
    > Funny that those who keeps up security updates got burned with
    > unbootable computer with the Wednesday's McAfee update. In this case,
    > anybody who has XP SP3 installed. Nice, eh?
    >
    > http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9175940/McAfee_apologizes_for_...
    >
    > --
    > Bill
    > Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3


    MORE HERE:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8636985.stm

    Security update hits Windows PCs

    Windows uses lots of copies of the svchost file

    Thousands of PCs around the world have been paralysed by a security
    update that wrongly labelled part of Windows as a virus.

    The update was sent out by security firm McAfee and made affected PCs
    endlessly restart.

    Corporate customers of McAfee seemed to be hardest hit but some
    individuals reported problems too.

    McAfee apologised for the mistake and released a fix to ensure PCs
    started working again.

    Thousands hit [i would opine millions - CJB]

    The problems were caused by an update to the long list McAfee's anti-
    virus uses to identify which programs are malicious.

    McAfee's 5958 update wrongly identified the Windows svchost.exe file
    as the wecorl.a virus. This worm tries to replace an existing svchost
    file with its own version to help it take over a machine.

    The update wrongly labelled svchost as the virus and then quarantined
    it. This caused many PCs to crash as Windows uses many copies of the
    file to keep the operating system going.

    Computers inside businesses running Windows XP with service pack 3
    applied were the hardest hit according to reports. The University of
    Michigan said 8,000 of its 25,000 computers were hit by the faulty
    update.

    The SANS Internet Storm Center said the update was causing "widespread
    problems" and said it received reports about "networks with thousands
    of down machines and organizations who had to shut down for business
    until this is fixed."

    Analyst Rob Enderle said the update "pretty much took Intel down
    today". Mr Enderle was at the chip giant's HQ for a meeting when the
    widespread crash started to hit the computers of the people with whom
    he sat.

    "We believe that this incident has impacted less than one half of one
    percent of our enterprise accounts globally," said a statement from
    McAfee, adding that an even smaller percentage of its consumer
    customers were hit.

    It said it removed the update "within hours" and released an updated
    file free of the mistake. It also issued a "sincere apology" for the
    inconvenience caused.
    CJB, Apr 26, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. BillW50

    Sjouke Burry Guest

    BillW50 wrote:
    > Funny that those who keeps up security updates got burned with
    > unbootable computer with the Wednesday's McAfee update. In this case,
    > anybody who has XP SP3 installed. Nice, eh?

    cut
    My computer did not crash when the update came out.
    I dont use mcafee :)
    Sjouke Burry, Apr 27, 2010
    #3
  4. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:4bd62add$0$14123$,
    Sjouke Burry typed on Tue, 27 Apr 2010 02:07:57 +0200:
    > BillW50 wrote:
    >> Funny that those who keeps up security updates got burned with
    >> unbootable computer with the Wednesday's McAfee update. In this case,
    >> anybody who has XP SP3 installed. Nice, eh?

    > cut
    > My computer did not crash when the update came out.
    > I dont use mcafee :)


    Makes sense to me if you don't use McAfee. ;-)

    --
    Bill
    Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3
    BillW50, Apr 27, 2010
    #4
  5. BillW50

    CJB Guest

    On Apr 27, 1:34 am, "BillW50" <> wrote:
    > Innews:4bd62add$0$14123$,
    > Sjouke Burry typed on Tue, 27 Apr 2010 02:07:57 +0200:
    >
    > > BillW50 wrote:
    > >> Funny that those who keeps up security updates got burned with
    > >> unbootable computer with the Wednesday's McAfee update. In this case,
    > >> anybody who has XP SP3 installed. Nice, eh?

    > > cut
    > > My computer did not crash when the update came out.
    > > I dont use mcafee :)

    >
    > Makes sense to me if you don't use McAfee. ;-)
    >
    > --
    > Bill
    > Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3


    The mind boggles how a company that purports to be a professional s/w
    company producing a virus protection service could get it so wrong. It
    was either exteme incompetance (and it should go out of business) or
    it was deliberate sabotage. I would opine it was probably the latter.
    My PC wasn't affected 'cos I have XP SP3 running Norton. But then
    Nortom doesn't have a squeaky clean reputation either. Many on the
    Groups <e.g. microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general > have posted
    complaints of McAfee and Norton screwing up the registry.

    In particular McAfee came pre-installed on my new Acer netbook.
    Apparently it screwed up the registry settings for IE8 running on Win
    7. This in turn meant that IE8 wouldn't activate hyperlinks and
    wouldn't start new tabs or windows. MS itself have had to issue a
    special cmd file to run to re-register IE8 dlls. The MS MVPs have also
    told me to remove both Norton and McAfee (if installed) and use virus
    protection apps. from elsewhere. This has wasted an inordinate amount
    of my time.

    Am NOT impressed with McAfee. CJB.
    CJB, Apr 27, 2010
    #5
  6. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    In
    news:,
    CJB typed on Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:03:12 -0700 (PDT):
    > The mind boggles how a company that purports to be a professional s/w
    > company producing a virus protection service could get it so wrong. It
    > was either exteme incompetance (and it should go out of business) or
    > it was deliberate sabotage. I would opine it was probably the latter.
    > My PC wasn't affected 'cos I have XP SP3 running Norton. But then
    > Nortom doesn't have a squeaky clean reputation either. Many on the
    > Groups <e.g. microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general > have posted
    > complaints of McAfee and Norton screwing up the registry.
    >
    > In particular McAfee came pre-installed on my new Acer netbook.
    > Apparently it screwed up the registry settings for IE8 running on Win
    > 7. This in turn meant that IE8 wouldn't activate hyperlinks and
    > wouldn't start new tabs or windows. MS itself have had to issue a
    > special cmd file to run to re-register IE8 dlls. The MS MVPs have also
    > told me to remove both Norton and McAfee (if installed) and use virus
    > protection apps. from elsewhere. This has wasted an inordinate amount
    > of my time.
    >
    > Am NOT impressed with McAfee. CJB.


    I am in total agreement with you CJB. Although I remember back in the
    late 90's, McAfee was one of the better ones. Then they got fancy and
    then had lots of compatibility problems. And I haven't used them in many
    years. These Gateway MX6124 laptops came with McAfee software. I played
    around with them and then uninstalled them.

    --
    Bill
    Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
    BillW50, Apr 29, 2010
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Andy
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    808
  2. Tim923

    home built PCs vs. factory PCs

    Tim923, Oct 28, 2004, in forum: Compaq
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    643
    WebbFeet
    Nov 23, 2004
  3. Julie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    310
    Julie
    Jan 26, 2006
  4. Julie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    368
    Julie
    Jan 26, 2006
  5. Markus
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    320
    Paul Sture
    Jan 4, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page