"hey, an unsubstantiated rumour"

Exactly lansalot! I mean, it isn't as if unknown apps calling a remote server in africa are a security risk. More over if your AV company is refusing to give you any important information about the subject.

You're exactly right. Just move along, pretend nothing happened, and your network will be secure. AV products have never failed in the past.

If any of my IT staff had simply dismissed this as an "unsubstantiated rumor" they would no longer be on my staff today.

Even as Symantic finally fesses up, it still needs to brand users asking for help as "spammers". Like they don't even know what spam is, let alone how to issue a proper response to a blown patch attempt.

This forced users to make their own way, and all the bad press that Symantic gets is well deserved. There is NO justification, just mealy mouthed excuses like spam.

The first reports, at the INQ and elsewhere, said PIFTS.exe tried to contact an IP address in north Africa. Is this something symantec security patches normally do?

I wish our customers had the sense to post on the Symantec message boards, 99% of our lot will see these error messages and ring us as their ISP.

Do you see Symantec in our branding? No?
Then why ring us for support. You'll be sat in a queue to be politely *usually* to go away.

Nice work there, Minotaur!
"If only the heads of IT departments could send Norton a bill for the wasted time and effort in trying to track this issue down. It's time to start a class action lawsuit against them for there incompetence and deceptive business practices."

No, IT depts won't need to send a bill. Because any competent IT dept won't have hit the panic button the way half the clots on forums and assorted blogs did. They'll have seen it through a dispassionate eye, judged it for what it was - hey, an unsubstantiated rumour - and moved along, nothing to see here. Also, you win my personal award for being the first fool to mention a class action lawsuit.

That doesn't explain why the patch was allegedly in a non-existent directory. Regardless of whether it was a "diagnostic patch", it was still trying to phone home and it was still hidden from the operating system like a rootkit.

If I ever decided to use some anti-virus software, I wouldn't touch Symantec's.

Symantec software frustrates me enough having to deal with it at work. Now this whole censorship and secrecy thing snowballing into conspiracy theories because their genius company reps are too scared to talk about it.

Not a company I desire to do business with for any reason. I hope the whole economic downturn removes this scar on the face of PC security forever.

BTW, my previous post was JK.

If there is one thing we do not need it would be more stupid lawsuits.

@Minotaur
I think most of your 'there' should have been 'their'.

This content has been deleted.

To trust any product from Norton after this incident. It highlights there contempt for there users, by keeping them in the dark on the issue. If they obviously can't control themselves, they have little hope in trying to control real malicious exploits when they do arise. If only the heads of IT departments could send Norton a bill for the wasted time and effort in trying to track this issue down. It's time to start a class action lawsuit against them for there incompetence and deceptive business practices.

This comment deleted at the request of Symantec.

Comment removed due to DMCA takedown order #09559293

This comment has been deleted.