Re: NIS2012 crashing with changes in firewall

TheSaber007 · ‎06-01-2012

Well Tony, while your answer isn't the one I was hoping for, at least you were giving us an update and a more or less realistic view of any possible fix. I commend you for that.

It is sad that there are many of us who will be wasting our 2012 licenses on your older 2011, not to mention relying on 2011 to keep us secure until the final 2013 product is released and any major bugs are fixed in the first one or two patches so that maybe by Jan 2013 it is considered as reliable as 2011 but with better features and security.

I know in the past the reason the rules haven't been allowed to be "imported" into a new version is changes in the code and firewall and how a customized rule could actually create a security hole. I know this belongs in suggestions, but why not design a simple filter that quickly picks out the rules that have no changes to the actual usage of the firewall security and is a simple block or allow command and has everything else left at the defaults Norton created for Allow and Block. Then at least users have a chance to import the simple ones and only need to worry about ones that alter the Norton default settings beyond Allow or Block.

Well 2011 you have work to do, you can't retire after all. 2012, consider this your pink slip, resign or be prosecuted.

gwm · ‎01-16-2012

I will stick to 2011 'till 2013 is in final. And I wait to see what we will be offered for all the time, frustration that we fretted away...

Tony_Weiss · ‎04-07-2008

jmason wrote:

The way I understand your message is the "2012 products" or, specifically, NIS2012 is dead in the water as far as the problem stated in Message #1 is concerned. Is that correct?

As for a trial solution, alternatives, or options, please refer to Message #87 for our concern.

As I wrote earlier, our team is still working on the fix for 2012. Unfortunately, I can't tell in the future when an acceptable fix might be available. I can only say what I know, which is that the team is working on it.

Message 87 parts that I assume you're referring to:

Who do you think in his/her right sense among us will risk installing YOUR fix/solution without an insurance? Norton says it should fix the problem. Well, if it fails, that means the dork who volunteered to be your guinea pig will have to manually enter all the firewall rules again, thanks to you. On the other hand, will the members of the technical team get a spanking for causing another painful experience on the user? I suppose not. They will just go back to working on another fix/solution for us to try again.

And even if the fix/solution works for some volunteers, Norton still will not be able to confirm that it is completely effective because not of all of us will install it in our systems. Not without an insurance. I for one will not install the fix/solution without an insurance. And what do you suppose is that insurance? Your promise or something to help minimize our trouble should lightning strike again?

Since the time of Message 87, we've been able to reproduce the issue in our labs. The fix in the 2013 BETA is a result of analysis of the logs from the systems, determining the cause, resolving the cause of the issue, and testing the fix on system we know can reproduce the error. We know that the issue is fixed for the 2013 products. However, as with any beta, there is a risk that errors will occur. There is no insurance or assurance. It's a beta: things can go wrong.

That said, it's not terribly difficult to make a backup of your system. In fact, most people backup their systems regularly, and if something goes awry during testing, they load the backup. As Tim states in the Welcome Message for the beta, you should always backup your system before beta testing. We recommend Norton Ghost as a great backup program, but there are certainly others.

Your decision to install the beta is completely yours -- there is no obligation on your part to install it. If you're not familar with backing up your system or beta testing in general, it may not be the best thing for you. However, if this issue is incredibly painful for you, and you're looking for an alternative, you may want to explore that option.

Tony Weiss
Norton Forums Global Community Manager
Symantec Corporation

jmason · ‎11-18-2011

In addition to customized daily system restore and targeted folder and file backup's, my system also performs weekly image/redundancy backup. Yet, it is very unlikely that I will try the NIS2013 Beta for Norton. You said: ... It's a beta: things can go wrong. Well, obviously in our case, even if it's NOT a Beta, it still went terribly wrong. So, what you said was meaningless to me. And, by the way, the English word "great" is so overused that the simple "good" now sounds more convincing.

I reported the problem back in November 2011. Now, June 2012 is almost over, and no solution is in sight. I am back to using NIS2011, and I won't be re-installing NIS2012 and trying any fix that you can produce - if ever - anymore. Therefore, any good news about the problem from Norton will be irrelevant for me.

Whether intentional or not, NIS2012 is effectively a Beta for your 2013 products, and all of the users with problems have effectively become your guinea pigs. Seen in one or many ways, Norton/Symantec has been making money out of our misery. I suppose it has always been like this for years, especially in this industry. I understand companies in other industries pay for their mistakes. I am not naive as to hope for the system, or life for that matter, to be fair with us, but there is certainly no justice in this. Or, not yet.

TheSaber007 · ‎06-01-2012

Now here is where I need to comment.

I assume 2013 uses different coding than 2012. So if you were able to use the data from your 2012 products to fix the issue in 2013, then in a way we served as guinea pig testers or "Alpha" testers for your Beta Release Candidate. That really is sad. I also agree with the above poster, now that we know the fix isn't going to be out anytime soon, why would we want to bother installing 2012, a fix (which we don't know if it will require a reinstall of NIS 2012 with the patch), and then 2013 final nor switch to the 2013 beta (which you said things can go wrong and I am sure no one who needs to know their system is secure will want to use beta software to protect their computers) and then over to 2013 on final release, in both cases having to rebuild the rules, and there is no assurance that the next beta release won't perhaps require a rebuild of the rules. Sure if someone wants to spend all the time that is fine.

I am not going to serve as a beta tester again. When I did beta testing I usually got the end product for free. So perhaps you need to figure out a way to compensate any user who can prove they were affected by this problem in their 2012 edition with a free extension of 365 days when 2013 is finally released. However don't make it so tedious nor costly (like asking us to send you an unbroken disc (meaning we have to pay to protect a coaster aka useless disc in mailing) nor give us a discount at your full price Symantec online store. Simply provide 2013 through a specila program with 365 days. I don't expect to simply be given a refund or money, I would be just happy to know that as a reward for the dropping of the 2012 ball, you are giving to us what we thought we were buying with 2012. I don't know how you will figure out who will get compensated with 2013 and who won't since maybe alot of people saw it was posted as an issue and didn't post they too were having issues. I am sure however either you or the members in the community can figure out some way of making sure only those who had the issue get the free year back.

jimmiller · ‎11-20-2008

Tony_Weiss wrote:

Your decision to install the beta is completely yours -- there is no obligation on your part to install it. If you're not familar with backing up your system or beta testing in general, it may not be the best thing for you. However, if this issue is incredibly painful for you, and you're looking for an alternative, you may want to explore that option.

Tony,

It seems to me that you and the company are still not understanding the giant hassle factor you are putting us through.

Most of the dilemma over whether to upgrade, downgrade, sideways-grade, or whatever would be taken away if the processes all simply preserved the program rules. I'd be willing to beta test if I could be sure I didn't have to re-enter my **bleep** rules each and every time.

This is a particularly big sore point for your customers on this thread, since the only reason we're being forced to consider all these options is the brokenness of the program rules module to begin with!

Provide a way for settings, including firewall rules, to be saved in case of disaster. General user backups are not it, since those entail a lot more work and change beyond just refreshing the Symantec settings. Symantec needs to provide a way to back up their user settings - with a password, fine.

I'm currently "exploring the option" of your competitors' internet security suites.

BullSpit · ‎02-23-2012

Before the choir starts singing....

Tony_Weiss wrote:

BullSpit wrote:

"We don't have a good fix for the 2012 products"

So, are we to take it that it will not be fixed in the current versions?

"Keep in mind that you'll have to rebuild your Firewall list for the 2013 BETA, then again for the 2013 Final Release."

You folks would REALLY be doing us, as customers a huge favor if that is not the case. That is why I stopped at build 133, I do NOT want to have to spend the time redoing the firewall rules. The early build, it may have been 116, installed perfectly fine over 2012 and saved my rules. Why not do this for later builds as well?

Is there going to be anything done to compensate us customers who paid for this broken and unfixed feature?

Hi BullSpit,

I don't know if it's going to be fixed for the current versions, sorry. We are working on a fix, but it's not a good enough one right now. We don't want to release a fix that causes more problems than it solves.

As to your questions about the rules in b133, it's how the layout is designed. I apologize for the inconvenience, I know it's frustrating.

You missed a question.

jmason · ‎11-18-2011

Here's a new idea: You can give NIS2012 to the enemy.

TheSaber007 · ‎06-01-2012

Tony,

If you read this, can you list the general specs of the machines you HAVE been able to reproduce this error on and those that you CAN'T repeat the error.

Does it happen to Nvidia and AMD GPU's? Does it happen more often with the mobile GPU's than desktop CPU's? Ivy Bridge, Sandy Bridge, Sandy Bridge-E? Overclock GPU or CPU? Intel 2000/3000/4000 iGPU? If we at least know what all the machines have in common that are showing this error (since I have to assume that if you can't reproduce this on all your machines there must be something common among them that differs from those that you can repeat it ) which will at least allow those who want to still get 2012 to work to see if they have anything in common with either machines.

Truepeace · ‎06-16-2012

Hi,

it is good to have this fix but why you suggested to download the beta release of NIS and not a beta for Norton 360? I have the 360 and I don't want to lose its features. However I prefer to wait the final stable release so in all cases, I will wait for the new Norton 360.