Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio sem nec elit. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Vestibulum id ligula porta felis euismod semper. Donec ullamcorper nulla non metus auctor fringilla. Aenean lacinia bibendum nulla sed consectetur. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Cras mattis consectetur purus sit amet fermentum. Morbi leo risus, porta ac consectetur ac, vestibulum at eros. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Etiam porta sem malesuada magna mollis euismod. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio sem nec elit. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Aenean eu leo quam. Pellentesque ornare sem lacinia quam venenatis vestibulum. Curabitur blandit tempus porttitor. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis.
Diesel's right. Your product is not up to current threats. I don't know what you expect to accomplish by threatening to move to another company if Symantec doesn't retrofit a 2003 product to the needs of a 2008 user. What operating system are you using? Is your AV even supposed to work with your OS?
My suggestion is do exactly as Diesel said. NIS 2009 is the best security software around. If you want a lesser product to punish Symantec, I suppose that's your decision. But, whoa, what a decision!
Hello,
When I try to open the quarantine console in NAV 2004 I get the following error message:
"Norton Antivirus Quarantine Console has encountered a problem and needs to close". Research shows the faulting application to be as below. AppName: qconsole.exe AppVer: 10.0.10.13 ModName: ecmsvr32.dll ModVer: 81.2.0.25 Offset: 00008b3c
Any ideas how to rectify this matter? I'm about two months away from renewing my subscription and if this isn't fixed soon I'll be shopping for another anti-virus program.
It's not just me having this problem, it's people using NAV 2009 as well. I have a hardware firewall which stops most of the crap attacks but I use the anti-virus for scanning incoming emails, other than that, it just sits here. This all started with a recent virus def update which took out the quarantine console. What I meant by my comment about switching was, that if 2009 customers are having the same problem why would I want to spend money to be in the same boat again? Duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh!
XP Pro SP3
Hello clint 45,
I am not aware of NAV 2009 customers having a problem with the Quarantine Console.
As far as the suggestions from Dieselman743 and mijcar, they are correct to point out that an older product will not keep up with today's rapidly evolving threats.
As good as a hardware firewall is, NIS 2009 will give you a two way firewall which provides the added benefit of blocking unauthorized outbound connections from your computer.
You could give NIS 2009 a try for 15 days at no charge. You will find that it is might lighter on system resources and has more sophisticated scanning that your current product.
If you decide to go that route, you should fully uninstall NAV 2004 before installing the NIS 2009 trial. Additionally, you should be sure that you do not have any other realtime security programs installed as that may cause a conflict.
The 15 day trial version is available here.
A hardware firewall stops inbounds. A software firewall stops outbounds. So yes you need both.
I use ZA for all outbound traffic and it works flawlessly for me so, I only need something to scan incoming email attachments. I'm not interested in NIS 2009, I just want what was working before to work again.
Capice?!
Which version of Zone Alarm are you referring to? You need to be sure your using the latest version of which ever Zone Alarm product your talking about or else there will be conflicts with NAV 2009.
Here's some official Symantec info on Zone Alarm compatibility:
http://community.norton.com/norton/board/message?board.id=nis_feedback&message.id=13111#M13111
The Quarantine Console (qconsole.exe) as a separate application was removed from the product a couple years ago. Quarantine is now integrated with our logging and scan results viewer in the Security History feature. The ecmsvr32.dll crash doesn’t happen in 2009.
Hello,
The Quarantine Console matter that clint45 addressed IS an issue, and I'll try and explain why. I'm as well using NAV 2004 on an XP SP1 machine (I need to stick with SP1 on this box for reasons I won't go into here). Like clint45, after a virus definitions update some weeks ago via LiveUpdate, my Quarantine Console became inaccessible. Items can still be quarantined, but there is no way to access them (other than through the Windows file manager).
Before any condescending remarks condemning my use of NAV 2004 are directed toward me, please consider the following. A month ago I was prompted to renew my Symantec definitions subscription since it was about to expire. I proceeded to renew the subscription and was allowed to do so. I was charged $39.99 for an additional year of access to virus definitions for my installation of NAV 2004. Soon thereafter, I ran LiveUpdate and downloaded the latest definitions file, which auto-installed as normal. For unknown reasons, this particular definitions update process rendered the file "qconsole.exe" no longer executable. Double-clicking the file itself does nothing, nor does pressing the 'View Report' button next to the 'Quarantined Items' icon on the NAV 2004 'Reports' screen.
Effectively, Symantec allowed me to renew my subscription for this older copy of NAV, and in turn took my money, then sent me a software update that broke an important part of the application's functionality (i.e., the ability to access and manage quarantined items). The Quarantine Console (qconsole.exe) had always worked fine before this incident.
I ask that you please either offer me assistance to repair this broken functionality, OR direct me to a means of applying the $39.99 that I paid for the subscription last month toward an upgrade to NAV 2009, OR direct me to a means of obtaining a full refund?
I don't want criticism. I just don't believe I should be expected to pay for online updates that ruin the functionality of an application that previously worked fine (and in fact worked fine for years).
Thanks in advance.
Hello plax,
To help aid you in your options, I would Contact Customer Service and see if they will be able to assist you. Be sure to explain to them your need to stay with Service Pack 1 of Windows XP. After that, please come back and let us know the resolution.
Hello Tim,
This Quarantine Console failure is the result of an incompatible ecmsvr32.dll version that's force-fed to NAV 2004 through the LiveUpdate process. That is, version 81.3.0.13 of ecmsvr32.dll is forced upon NAV 2004 users, resulting in the broken Quarantine Console functionality. I can replace this version of ecmsvr32.dll with the previous version (v. 1.2.0.13) and the Quarantine Console is again accessible and functions properly. However, leaving this old file in place either effectively breaks LiveUpdate, or LiveUpdate replaces the file with version 81.3.0.13 again, thus returning the Quarantine Console to its broken state.
I in fact had called Symantec customer service yesterday about this matter. I was issued a priority number and waited on hold for approximately 2 hours to speak with a next-level technical representative. I spoke with a total of 3 separate individuals: 1) the initial call-taker; 2) a representative named "James"; and 3) a representative named "Ken" who phoned me back after a long session with James. Each of these individuals was at a call center in India.
I explained the problem (in detail) to James. I expressed to him that the problem is not isolated and that it's being discussed on various threads, which is true. He still insisted that I remove and reinstall NAV 2004. I went along with his request, despite that I was quite certain the same failure would return after the final session of LiveUpdate. And it indeed did.
James decided to terminate the call and phone me back in 10 minutes -- that is, before the final update had finished. Instead, the second tech representative, Ken, called me some time later. I expressed to him that the reinstall resulted in the same broken functionality. He assured me that the problem would be resolved via a LiveUpdate patch available within a few days. He told me to check LiveUpdate at least once per day.
Since this issue has been a problem for 3 months and Symantec has seemingly done nothing to correct it in response to documented customer notifications, let's say that I'm not going to hold my breath for the fix that Ken promised me. In another forum, on August 26, Symantec Sr. SQA Manager, Reese Anschultz stated that Symantec was researching the issue and provided an assigned incident number of 1397537. On August 28, he posted back that they were "continuing to investigate the issue" and that he "may not have a solution for you until next week". He never returned to the thread, so none of the forum users was able to learn the outcome.
I have to say that the appearance has been that Symantec has willfully ignored the matter. Three months is a long time for something like this. Quarantine functionality is essential in the older versions of Norton AntiVirus and Symantec obviously still supports NAV 2004 as far as selling LiveUpdate access.
Your further comments are welcome.
Thank you
And this is purely a Symantec issue... it's happening to too many individuals to be considered unique or isolated and it's entirely duplicatable.
I tried to post my response here in a RATHER heated letter and guess what, it wouldn't post! GEE I WONDER WHY!! To date, no fix and my renewal date is getting closer and closer. (12-18-2008) If I don't see a fix by then guess what, I'll open my wallet to ANOTHER COMPANY that treats its LONG STANDING customers right. Fix what you broke Symantec! I don't take lightly to BREECH OF CONTRACT and TRUST ME, you don't want to be on my bad side!
That's all I have to say, fix what you broke or BYE BYE!! (Oh and I'll be sending through channels a refund request for the time you made my product unusable)
I can certainly empathize, clint45. I'll likely end up doing the same thing. I'm giving them every chance first, though.
A new virus definitions installment (20081119.017) became available through LiveUpdate yesterday evening. It was 8866.3 KB in size and it contained no fix for this issue. The ecmsvr32.dll file in this update is still version 81.3.0.13 so, naturally, the Quarantine Console is still inaccessible.
I think the way in which an Internet security software company deals with customer-reported bugs says an awful lot about that company. If people can't trust Symantec to listen to feedback concerning faulty modifications that Symantec themselves have implemented and distributed to the users of their products, as well as to correct those faulty modifications within a reasonable time frame, how can people trust that Symantec will attend to new information about malware threats in a timely fashion? And, for that matter, how can people trust that Symantec will act appropriately to mitigate such threats once they've identified them? This all tends to beg the fundamental question: Can Norton AntiVirus really be trusted to protect our computers? In my view, it's a viable concern.
In our world, software vender support personnel typically jump to blame customer-reported product failures upon: 1) user error; 2) an active virus or other malware infection on the system; and/or 3) speculation of confliction with system software from other software suppliers and/or speculation of system hardware incompatibility. And, of course, hardware vender support personnel typically blame such reported failures upon customer software or upon conflicts with system hardware from other venders, or occasionally even upon their personal speculation of malware infection presence. It's a clear pattern: they each try to pass the buck, simply because it's easier to blame the other guy than to effectively troubleshoot a matter as if it may genuinely be an issue imposed by their own product.
Well, in some cases customer testing coupled with logical deduction confirms precisely where a failure lies. And that's absolutely the case here. Symantec needs to demonstrate that they are actively taking steps to resolve this issue which they've imposed upon their longstanding customers through the dissemination of carelessly defective automatic updates. If Symantec continues to ignore the inconvenience, and the risks, they've created for paying customers like myself, especially considering that most of those customers won't learn they can no longer access their Quarantine Console until the time comes when they require access to it, how can Symantec reasonably be relied upon otherwise?
I just ran the update and it installed SOMETHING on the system but it still did not fix the Quarantine Console problem. That's ok, time is running out (12-18-2008 tick toc, tick toc) and my money is staying in my hot little hands till this matter is resolved. I don't take kindly to be treated like CRAP when I spend my hard earned dollars in GOOD FAITH! I expect RESPECT from the company I'm dealing with and if they can't give me that, well, then like I said, I'll take my money elsewhere. I'm SURE Symantec is so large now that they can AFFORD TO LOSE a few long time customers to the competition. Hey, isn't that the same thing that happened to the USA car companies? They treated their customers like crap and guess what......BYE BYE!!
Oh but I'm SURE this will NEVER happen to Symantec!!!
Just to put things into perspective here:
I would guess that there are about ten thousand people who call up or chat for help because they can't read or didn't follow instructions or got panicked by something their neightbor told them. And there are a large number of callers with genuine problems.
Symantec has no way to tell who is who.
(I suppose they could keep a database on callers. If someone calls up with more than one false issue, they can be put on a black list and any call or chat request from that person puts that person on perpetual hold. But that wouldn't be nice.)
Now it sounds to me like what you are asking for is for Symantec to hang up on every single one of those people (practically) and immediately jump into solving your particular problem, working nonstop, 24 hours a day, until the situation is resolved, even if at the end of that time it turns out that the problem is something you did or didn't do and has nothing really to do with Norton. Because they can't tell in advance where the problem is going to be, can they?
So what we are talking about is personal service, basically your own private Computer Security company. Let's see, that comes to a minimum, at best, of one excellent coder per client. Instead of paying retail $49 for a product we can pay -- hmm, let me calculate here -- about $60,000 or more per year.
So while the clock is tick-tocking away your valuable subscription money to Symantec, I definitely would not be surprised if some other clock is tick-tocking away for subscribers to McAfee or subscribers to some other company who are equally unhappy to not have that company immediately stop everything they are doing and solve that particular client's problem ahead of everyone else.
It reminds me of lunchtime at junior high school. Every kid at the end of the line seems to think he or she has some personal right to cut into the line ahead of everyone else; and if they aren't allowed to do this, then by gosh, they'll just go to some other school! Serve them right.
Well, Plax, I've reread the thread, re-read your post and my conclusions are the same. You seem to be expecting the world to stop at your convenience.
You have been presented with solutions that you ignore.
The main solution was download NAV 2009 and replace an out-of-date product. It's five years old -- what kind of business are you running that can't afford an update?
But wait! You can try it for free. Let's see, that comes to, uh, .... nothing! At least you will know if and how it will work for you. Since you just paid for a subscription renewal, I am confident that Symantec will be glad to transfer the amount to the cost of a replacement product if you decide you like it; they might even throw in a couple of extra months.
What you say you want - to paraphrase in more honest words - is for Symantec to retrofit a Model T to work in today's hybrid economy; and you're upset that they're not doing it on your demand.
Meanwhile, the other poster is threatening to take his money (all of it, for heaven's sake) away from Symantec and give it to McAfee (I can imagine McAfee waiting tensely for the opportunity to sell their 2005 product and then modify it to meet the poster's exact needs, all for the price of one AV package - probably their entire corporate structure depends on this one sale).