SCI: Tech Fears Arise Over Norton and Pifts.exe, page 14
Pages: <<  11    12    13    14    15    16    17  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 267 times


reply posted on 10-3-2009 @ 12:04 PM by XXXN3O
reply to post by Cadbury


Very true.

It is the reply that I got to after directly emailing.

The employee does say there will be an announcement. Email for yourself if you like, I did include the details in a link to symnatecs website.

I am not defending them, I just think asking them directly mght get an answer instead of listening to rumours etc.

If they do not say anything by the end of today I will be suspect to say the least.

They are still tearing any legitimate questions down and spam regarding this.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by XXXN3O]


reply posted on 10-3-2009 @ 12:08 PM by kuhl
From the Qwest website



Qwest knows federal IT is mission critical. Which is why we're committed to keeping you up and running, no matter what it takes. We've built networks for agencies across the U.S. government, from the Department of Defense to Energy to Treasury.


here

but Wiki says



Qwest was allegedly the lone holdout, despite threats from the NSA that their refusal to cooperate may jeopardize future government contracts


Well they don't seem to be doing to bad.



reply posted on 10-3-2009 @ 12:12 PM by XXXN3O
reply to post by Cadbury


I emailed - Dear **********,

as a concerned customer I would like to know if there are any truths to any and all rumours surrounding this file included in the latest Norton Update.

I am aware that posting about this issue is resulting in an immediate ip block from the boards therefore I have resorted to asking directly.

I would appreciate a prompt reply with an explanation of exactly what this file does.

I received the reply - ********, I don’t have much detail about this issue. I believe that Symantec will be making a public announcement about this file in near future. I do believe that it is a legitimate file delivered by live update. Unfortunately, somebody has chosen to about our Norton Community forums regarding this issue and the remediation for this abuse is having some unintended collateral damage.



I wish I could tell you more, but this is all that I know at this time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have taken names out to protect the innocent in case you are wondering

Hope that clears the questions asked etc



[edit on 10-3-2009 by XXXN3O]


reply posted on 10-3-2009 @ 12:15 PM by Tripnman
reply to post by daenris


Thanks for the quick response. Yes, I searched compressed files and still no joy. Wondering if this is relegated to 2009 Norton products or just the anti-virus program rather than the full suite? I'm running NIS2008.

Norton hosed one machine last week with a bad update and I spent hours uninstalling every tiny little tendril of it from the box. When I re-installed, it would not activate claiming I had too many activations on the account. I callled tech support and they wanted to remote in to fix the problem. That went over well. After a brief discussion they finally made a change in the registration server and my product re-activated. I mention this to point out that this is a fresh install with all current updates, but no pifts.exe file.

Once the current subscription expires (or when I find time, whichever comes first!), this product is gone from my network.


reply posted on 10-3-2009 @ 12:20 PM by spinkyboo
reply to post by CaptainCaveMan


Very, very interesting information.
Thanks for the find.


reply posted on 10-3-2009 @ 12:21 PM by daenris
Originally posted by Tripnman
reply to post by daenris


Thanks for the quick response. Yes, I searched compressed files and still no joy. Wondering if this is relegated to 2009 Norton products or just the anti-virus program rather than the full suite? I'm running NIS2008.



My work laptop is running NIS2006, and it's present there.


I received the reply - ********, I don’t have much detail about this issue. I believe that Symantec will be making a public announcement about this file in near future. I do believe that it is a legitimate file delivered by live update. Unfortunately, somebody has chosen to about our Norton Community forums regarding this issue and the remediation for this abuse is having some unintended collateral damage.


The problem I have with this explanation from them is that the thread deleting started well before any spam or 4chan raiding. There was a completely legitimate thread last night for several hours that just contained questions from people asking what the file was. It was removed. A second similar thread with more queries was removed as well. The spam/raiding started many hours later and was most likely prompted by the fact that Norton was deleting threads.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by daenris]


reply posted on 10-3-2009 @ 12:23 PM by XXXN3O
reply to post by daenris


I agree with that but it is pretty obvious that if I email back im just going to get the runaround.

The reply I have gotten is pretty much the same thing.

It is going to be interesting when the statement about this file pops out and an explanation is given. In my opinion it should have been way sooner as the damage is done now in terms of reputation.


[edit on 10-3-2009 by XXXN3O]


reply posted on 10-3-2009 @ 12:32 PM by XXXN3O
I just looked at this thread here in norton boards

community.norton.com...

It contained an ip address with a log in that the user was saying is linked to this file ""http://67.134.208.160/n/""
It asks for a username and password.

I did a look up on that ip address

www.ip-adress.com...

Shady stuff?

Is this complete nonsense or is there any accuracy in this?

Edit: removed now lol

[edit on 10-3-2009 by XXXN3O]



reply posted on 10-3-2009 @ 12:45 PM by XXXN3O
reply to post by kuhl


Well if this is all adding up correctly.

It looks like somebody has made a mistake.

A few more people might be adding to the unemployment figures?



[edit on 10-3-2009 by XXXN3O]


reply posted on 10-3-2009 @ 12:45 PM by warpboost
How is that Norton is able to get all these deals with the OEM computer companies to come preinstalled I know some places will let you pick what software you want between a choice or 2 or have it come with none, but I just don't get how Norton is able to coerce all these computer manufacturers to preinstall it? I'm sure they pay em off, give them a cut of subscription renewals etc and the money is what does it.

This is a great benchmark that shows just how bloated and crappy Norton is! a 2300+% increase in file I/O is just unbelievable! and as others have pointed out it's very very hard to completely uninstall unless you know what you're doing

www.thepcspy.com...

You would think if nothing else computer companies wouldn't want to load up their product with software that slows it down more than any other software available for fear it would give their product a bad name.


I've also read some stuff about how Norton is all buddy'd up to the credit card companies and it's very difficult if not impossible to get a charge from them removed or dispute it And people speculate it's because they've negotiated some deal where the pay a higher percentage cut for protection so the credit company is on their side!



Another thing I came across the other day while browsing this site

homepage.ntlworld.com...

Symantec operates security operation centers from hardened underground bunkers and provides computer security services to governments

www.pcworld.com...

I did find this that says they've outgrown the place

www.infoworld.com...

[edit on 10-3-2009 by warpboost]
Pages: <<  11    12    13    14    15    16    17  >>    ^^TOP^^