• All Community
    • All Community
    • Forums
    • Ideas
    • Blogs
Advanced

Not what you are looking for? Ask the experts!

This forum thread needs a solution.
Kudos3 Stats

Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

Why symantec not reacts or reacts too late when I submit undetected viruses to them? about 5-6 month my PC at work is infected with many viruses.. NAV 2009 can't detect them and every time I delete these files with my hands, I'AM TIRED, it takes all my time and it HURTS me!!! these viruses come from USB flash drives.
I submitted these samples several times, with web submission and with quarantine... and every time I receive this answer from Symantec: Our automation was unable to identify any malicious content in this submission. 
 The file will be stored for further human analysis. 
 The tracking numbers of these samples are: #10045189, #10049496, #10073751, #10091235..  
Can you explaine me why I pay money to bay AV if this AV can't detect and remove viruses from my pc??? even I submit these viruses to this AV vendor???

Replies

Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

Why symantec not reacts or reacts too late when I submit undetected viruses to them? about 5-6 month my PC at work is infected with many viruses.. NAV 2009 can't detect them and every time I delete these files with my hands, I'AM TIRED, it takes all my time and it HURTS me!!! these viruses come from USB flash drives.
I submitted these samples several times, with web submission and with quarantine... and every time I receive this answer from Symantec: Our automation was unable to identify any malicious content in this submission. 
 The file will be stored for further human analysis. 
 The tracking numbers of these samples are: #10045189, #10049496, #10073751, #10091235..  
Can you explaine me why I pay money to bay AV if this AV can't detect and remove viruses from my pc??? even I submit these viruses to this AV vendor???

Kudos2 Stats

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

Same kind of post and same reply of mine :

U r absolutely right, norton is not doing anything about trojan detection and improvement for which it was best 2 yrs ago.

Now it only concentrates on speed, do not bother about security.

Very dissapointed by this and really i m not going to buy 2010 ver due to no support

I will even ask my friends not to buy it (there are at least 10 ppl who bought it on my recommendation)

So norton don't bother about security and we will not bother about u :)

----------------------------------------------------------------NIS 2011 beta 18.0.0.107 Win 7 7600 RTM 32-bit
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

Will ask one of the employees
"All that we are is the result of what we have thought"
Kudos1 Stats

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

Can someone answer my question?? is there anyone from Symantec who is able answer me what to do? change NAV 2009 with other security software?
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!


tsilo wrote:
Can someone answer my question?? is there anyone from Symantec who is able answer me what to do? change NAV 2009 with other security software?

Please be patient. They will come to you

"All that we are is the result of what we have thought"
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

If you wish to add supplemtary protection, try ThreatFire.

If you wish to remove the malware, try various online scanners, such as OneCare or Panda ActiveScan. 

And I understand your agony. I submitted samples back in August, and there has been no human analysis yet. 

Message Edited by Tech0utsider on 12-04-2008 06:33 PM
=\
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

symantec Security Response currently has a back-log of Submissions which they have to deal with before they come to your's which you Submitted on December 01, 2008, for example.
Thursday, November 21, 2013: The THREATCON was changed to Level 1: Normal | Tue., Nov. 05, 2013: Zero-Day Vulnerability: Microsoft Security Advisory 2896666 | Saturday, November 09, 2013: Cyber-Criminals Serve Up A Veritable Smorgasbord Of Threats For South Koreans | Wednesday, October 09, 2013: New Internet Explorer Zero-Day Targeted In Attacks Against Korea And Japan [C.V.E.-2013-3897]
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

Well...just how long is that backlog?
=\
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!


Tech0utsider wrote:
Well...just how long is that backlog?
A few months.
Thursday, November 21, 2013: The THREATCON was changed to Level 1: Normal | Tue., Nov. 05, 2013: Zero-Day Vulnerability: Microsoft Security Advisory 2896666 | Saturday, November 09, 2013: Cyber-Criminals Serve Up A Veritable Smorgasbord Of Threats For South Koreans | Wednesday, October 09, 2013: New Internet Explorer Zero-Day Targeted In Attacks Against Korea And Japan [C.V.E.-2013-3897]
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!


Floating_Red wrote:

Tech0utsider wrote:
Well...just how long is that backlog?
A few months.

No wonder.

=\
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

At least they are looking into all samples seriously
"All that we are is the result of what we have thought"
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

tsilo

I just checked the status of these 4 submission tracking numbers and it looks like they're being looked at today.

Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

Tsilo, please upload the infected files to VirusTotal and ThreatExpert and post the links to the analysis here.
=\
Kudos1 Stats

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

agreed...they only think about speed speed and speed....security is MORE important
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!


Tech0utsider wrote:
Tsilo, please upload the infected files to VirusTotal and ThreatExpert and post the links to the analysis here.

No need for it for Symantec.

The employee allready said they were looking into it

"All that we are is the result of what we have thought"
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

Still, I am interested, and I find Norton to be slightly conservative.
=\
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

Just as a final follow-up to all on this thread...

It appears that decetions for those 4 submission was added on the same day as my last post ( Dec 5, 08)

Looks like this thread is resolved...?

Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

This thread will resolved when Symantec will speed up his virus response, becasue I have another 5 undetected by Norton files.. so problem wasn't in these files, problem is in response time!!!
Kudos1 Stats

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

not enough manpower...= saving money..LOL
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!


NateR wrote:

Just as a final follow-up to all on this thread...

It appears that decetions for those 4 submission was added on the same day as my last post ( Dec 5, 08)

Looks like this thread is resolved...?


What were the detections?

=\
Kudos1 Stats

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

I know exactly what you mean; check out the ongoing thread over here:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21479318-Symantec-finds-malware-sample-to-be-non-malicious

Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

I have a suggestion.. why not to make and integrate in NIS NAV USB disk security software, there is one software that protecs USB and do it without virus database. Have a look here http://www.zbshareware.com/
I think it will be very good and Symantec employes, please pay your attention to this software and made his analog, it will increase very well Symantec products detection..
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

You can package Norton with VMware's ThinApp and execute it portabally. Or you could use Avast for U3, which has higher detection than Norton =\
=\
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

Yes I can, but I sad different thing... 
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

Then package ThreatFire w/ ThinApp since it does not use signatures and is very small ... <10 mb.
=\
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!


Tech0utsider wrote:

What were the detections?


#10045189
This submission contains an autorun.inf file dropped by the threat.

#10049496
Detection added as below:
    Name: W32.Gammima.AG

       
#10073751
Detection added as below:
    Name: W32.Gammima.AG
       

#10091235
Already detected as W32.Gammima.AG

Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!


NateR wrote:

Tech0utsider wrote:

What were the detections?


#10045189
This submission contains an autorun.inf file dropped by the threat.
     


Is there a name for that? Is the autorun malicious?

=\
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

The Autorun.inf is not malicious in itself.
Kudos2 Stats

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

All my submissions to Symantec (undetected automatically) have two-three weeks delay. It's not good enough but is more effective than ESET and McAfee.

And newer versions of Norton products embbed SONAR technology that catches a lot of malware based on its behaviour when it go to RAM memory.

Thanks

Kudos1 Stats

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

In my case there was 1-2 month delay, it's very big time...
And what about SONAR... I use x64 bit Vista Ultimate... so Sonar don't works for me. Avira have best respons, they add submited sample to database max 3-4 days.
Kudos0

Re: Symantec have HORRIBLE virus response!!!

Forget about SONAR. You won't miss it. Use ThreatExpert.
=\

This thread is closed from further comment. Please visit the forum to start a new thread.