Hi Hallmark:
I submitted a Product Suggestion for Norton GPT partition support in this thread...
As a suggestion, you might want to post in the Malwarebyte's Forum and see if they support it, as a temporary
solution. I don't think that they do at this time. GPT and the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI)
are relatively new technologies which haven't (yet) penetrated the mainstream market.
Kind of similar to 64-bit Browser and Native USB 3.0 support.
It's coming; Patience! 
Best,
Atomic_Blast :)
Hallmark wrote:OK - I'm probably about to show a good example of how a little learning is a dangerous thing.
Having done some research on GPT, including http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/g
g463525, I see it includes a 'Protective MBR'. This seems designed to provide information along the lines of (pardon the not technical language) "I exist but if you don't understand GPT then don't mess with me!"
As my NIS2012 scans one item on each of my two GPT drive letters, D & E, I assume that one item is the 'Protective MBR'. If that is the case, at least the message is working!
Hi, Hallmark. Yes, NIS would read the "Protective MBR" - since for compatibility reasons that MBR is located exactly where it is normally created using any utility which creates MBR Partitions using 48-bit LBA. NIS would also read the Protective MBR's Partition Table. However, the whole idea behind the "Protective MBR" is to prevent Utilities that do not understand GPT from seeing a "missing" MBR and an "empty" MBR-style Partition Table - and then interpret that as if the drive was unpartitioned. (User: GAK! What happened to my data!)
The idea behind the "Protective MBR" is to create a placeholder - to keep non-GPT-aware Utilities from monkeydiddling with what they don't understand. The above allows backwards-compatibility - by allowing non-GPT-aware Utilities to be installed on machines using GPT Partitions - while ensuring those non-GPT-aware Utilities do not have the ability to access GPT Partitions in error while-at-the-same-time avoiding reports of "things that aren't so".
Now, let's talk about why GPT-support is not yet supported in NIS. Adding support for newly-emerging technologies in something as vitally-important as Anti-Malware Software is fraught with risk. There is an expectation from the General Public that this stuff is supposed to be absolutely bulletproof before it is released. Yet, the environment required to properly test said advancements has not demonstrated verified stability itself. So, things get delayed until the environment required to test said improvements demonstrates in the real world said stability and reliability.
You have commented in a previous post that Windows 7's own Backup Utility refuses to back up to GPT targets. Hmmmm. Now why would that be? Could Microsoft themselves be somewhat-less-than-confident in the "bulletproofness" of their Backup Software when it comes to GPT support? Nobody knows. However, what should Symantec interpret that lack-of-support to mean - in the absence of any explanation from MS as to why said GPT support is missing from MS' own Backup product?
Ah, ze light bulb - she begins to glow dimly... 
As corollary support for the above contention - there is the issue of Microsoft recommending that users continue to use the 32-bit version of MSIE - despite the existence of the 64-bit version.
Similarly, there is the issue of Microsoft recommending that users continue to use the 32-bit version of Microsoft Office - despite the existence of the 64-bit version.
See the thread at the following link for some of the reasons why Symantec find it prudent to delay the full implementation of 64-bit program support. The same rationales are equally as valid for support of the 64-bit GPT Addressing Scheme.
http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Internet-Sec
Some comments over-and-above those in the abovementioned thread:
So, here we have GPT - an entirely new Partitioning Scheme requiring an entirely new method of Boot Support through the UEFI BIOS. No history. No track record. If I was Symantec, I'd be sweating mightily at risking the Company's reputation by supporting that feature before it is demonstrably stable. Furthermore, IMO there are not enough systems out there using GPT for either MS or Symantec to know whether or not there's a showstopper bug in that new Partitioning Environment which has yet to reveal itself. There has certainly been a lot of evolution of UEFI BIOS code - motherboard BIOS updates for new boards are rife with housekeeping errors and "flavour of the month" BIOS releases/rereleases.
Since the Boot Process for GPT is handled by the UEFI BIOS - and the UEFI BIOS is a demonstrably unstable environment - would you "bet the Company" on something this unverified in the real world? With your reputation at stake with millions of users?
Hmmm. Thought not...
Hallmark wrote:Hello twixt
You bring to light many valid points and nothing I can really disagree with.
Discussing generalities, I agree MS themselves can't be said to have fully embraced 64 bit yet. I know they will often cite their reasons for recommending 32 bit IE and Office as being that the third-party add-ons are not there yet - but we can all take a view as to how significant that really is.
My Symantec/NIS issues are in two areas.
1. I'd like Symantec to be rather clearer their support for GPT is currently close to non-existent.
[stuff deleted in the interests of brevity]
Is it really that if they can't provide *complete* support for GPT, they won't provide *any* support for it in AV products? I've noticed that they list limited support for GPT in the Ghost product pages (and quite possibly on the box - I've not read one). Could it be that there a feeling that Ghost users are a little more technically savvy and can understand limitations while the masses who use NIS couldn't understand limited protection (and as a result get none, for now at least)?
Just my speculation and curiosity and I don't think any of the above disputes your much appreciated input.
Thanks again
Hallmark
Hi, Hallmark. IMO, Symantec would leave themselves completely vulnerable to a negative-marketing campaign - no different than found in many Political Arenas at election time - if Symantec were to officially admit the existence of a feature that is not yet out-of-beta nor properly validated in real-world terms.
Consequently, I think it is wise for Symantec to state (when prodded and only if required) that: "It's in development, we will release it when it's ready - and not until". And even then, IMO they are within their rights to say nothing at all - if they consider that the most prudent course of action.
Furthermore, Symantec is already getting slagged by its competitors for missing X64 support for MSIE - when MSIE with X64 Flash Support has been demonstrated as acceptably stable as a valid test-environment for less than 2 months.
To anyone with Software Development experience, this slagging is utterly unjustifiable. Why are Symantec's competitors even talking this way? To me, it reeks yet-again of negative-marketing bias. I think Symantec does very well by not rising to the bait in this regard.
Furthermore, IMO you have hit the nail on the head with your closing paragraphs.
Many NIS users look at NIS as an "appliance". They plug it in, turn it on, and it's just supposed to work.
What you propose as an acceptable partial-workaround for you - would leave Symantec open to howls of outrage if they acceded to your request and added "Limited Support for GPT" to NIS.
Even if the limitations were clearly delineated in the Product Details - the information would be irrelevant. Many many many Computer Users see only what they want to see - and are puzzled or confused when reality intrudes upon their preconceived notions. The result, in many situations, is irretrievable data loss. This is very accurately described by the Wise Old Computer Saying: "When all else fails, read the instructions." Regardless, this doesn't seem to happen all that often. 
Symantec must design and build NIS so it works well for the "typical" computer user - who wants a "set and forget" environment. That the product "just happens" to work well for expert users also - is icing on the cake. But make no mistake - expert users are a small minority of the total Computer User cohort.
Note: That expert users happen to be the people - who can find and fix the problems that all computers manifest - is very useful. However, this in no way confirms we reflect the thinking of "Joe Average". No way, no how, not at all.
Finally, that Symantec have added GPT support to Ghost for non-boot GPT Target-Drives/Arrays - is IMO a very courageous move. Especially considering that MS has not yet gone there with its own Backup product. But yes, Ghost users tend to be a much more knowledgeable and reliability-driven breed than typical computer users. Thus, I would be willing to bet that Ghost users who have a GPT Drive or Array have at least some of their images backed up onto MBR 48-bit-LBA Drives as well. Belt and Suspenders is the usual Ghost motto. (RAID1 Arrays to 5-level Backup Sets as well as Archives - on several different Target Drives here)
Hope this fills in more of the missing pieces for you.
- �1995 - 2013 Symantec Corporation Legal Notice License Agreement Privacy Policy Cookies Site Map RSS
