We had IBM 360 assembly and PL/I. At that time, CUNY (City University of NY) had only mainframes in midtown and RJEs at the satellite campuses. Punch cards … remember those? Don’t drop your deck!!!
Mark_Kratzer wrote:
We had IBM 360 assembly and PL/I. At that time, CUNY (City University of NY) had only mainframes in midtown and RJEs at the satellite campuses. Punch cards ... remember those? Don't drop your deck!!!
My first job in Special Programming at White Sands (I was a student trainee), I was replacement for someone who had quit rather suddenly. I was handed one of those long boxes of punchcards and a crumpled single page (one side blank) of a flow chart. I was told to find out why the program on the punchcards wasn't doing what it was supposed to do. It was written in machine language (LLS, LRS, etc). At least (at least!) I didn't have to translate numeric code.
Mark,
Got you beat. 1401...
F
MED2000 wrote:Mark,
Got you beat. 1401...
F
And ... 620's was it? Looked like a huge toaster?
If people who programmed today had the training we had then, and the diligence we needed not to crash some rocket or just run up millions of dollars in computer time, we would not have the piece of junk called Windows, or most of the stuff people are persuaded to drop on it. Code today is this bloated ballon of redundancy, using far more memory than necessary and far more lines of coding than any decent software would need.
Most of the malware written today is nothing more than boilerplate copied by some loser high school dropout, angry at the world, who modifies cookbook malware with cookbook suggestions and thinks he's some kind of genius because he can hurt a lot of people. And none of this would be happening if the original designers of DOS and then Windows actually knew how to write software.
Message Edited by mijcar on 11-24-2009 07:30 PM
Message Edited by mijcar on 11-24-2009 07:30 PM
I want to say that now SONAR has gone too far and crossed the line!
Previously, it was just endangering people’s livelihood.
But recently, it has started deleting my games and game utilities and that is no nonsense serious! I like playing war/strategy games. Many of these are older or have relatively small communities.
I am really getting irritated by that delay, followed by the little red pop-up, fishing in quarantine, etc…
I really get the sense that SONAR is practicing scanning discrimination. If you play relatively obscure games and use tools/utilities/mods which few have on their PCs, then you are penalized for your computing diversity. If on the other hand, you play Sims 3,
Symantec: “Welcome to our cloud!”
This is Cyber discrimination at its worst.
(the above is meant to be a sarcastic rant and with a sense of humor)
—
But seriously, this is billed as “Sonar 2” and “advanced”, but the reality is simply that any novel program is considered a threat. There is apparently no analysis of behavior. Doesn’t sound all that sophisticated to me. Sigh …
Hi
This problem with Sonor 2 deleting old programs and games is exactly the reason why I won't update to 2010. I still use GameSpyArcade to play Unreal Tournament 99. These are both old programs with not too large of a membership especially when you have to count the membership consisting of people who use Symantec. Just as it deletes new programs and exe's, I suspect it will do the same thing with older games and programs. Yes, both are like 10 years old, but I will not take the chance of getting this game deleted or GameSpyArcade either. My System Works Standard sub is expiring by the end of the year. I suppose I will have to buy another key for System Works, hopefully, I can still do that even though there isn't any new System Works coming out. I guess I have to say I'm glad there isn't a new one coming out because then I would be getting NAV 2010 with it and I won't do that after reading all these complaints about sonor 2 and it's deleting things based on the popularity of a program or an exe. file. Not every thing old or new can be considered as a thing that can be deleted from a person's computer without any interaction from that person. Deleting a virus is one thing, deleting people's programs and games just because they are old isn't right.
If I had realized this before, I would have stayed on NIS09. At this point, it would be a hassle for me to downgrade 4 systems. So, I guess I will just stay with NIS10 and tough it out.
Additionally, it is not like you can just do a full system scan and exclude everything which ended up erroneously being picked up. SONAR2 only kicks in when you execute. So, you may have not used something for months, but then you run it and “goodbye”.
I haven’t actually lost anything permanently, but this is still quite irritating and simple minded.
Hi, I'm new here and see there has already many been reports on SONAR on quite a large timespan (here from May, but there are threads originating in 2008 on the very same subject).
I have recently come back from McAffee to Symantec but I'm having second thoughts, at first glance it appeared Norton was less "heavy" than before, was more responsive and less intrusive, and that was the reason of my changing (McAfee is a bit too omnipresent, and loves pop-ups too much to my taste).
Now I've come across those SONAR issues, first when I was trying to create Python stand-alone executables with pyinstaller, then when creating simple test programs with gcc (MinGW). It's simply impossible to develop with that experimental SONAR protection feature, and it's not really possible to turn it off either or Norton would just harass me until I put it back.
Is that issue being addressed at Symantec? What are the current options? Is there a way to remove it permanently without Norton thinking the system is completely corrupted?
The version is Norton Internet Security 17.1.0.19 on Windows 7 (32 bits).
Thanks in advance for any advice!
Blocked compilers/tools (so far):
- gcc.exe (GCC) 3.4.5
- python 2.6.4 with distutils setup
- pyinstaller 1.3 / 1.4beta
- any installer for Python modules built from distutils (and there are many of them)
Message Edited by Scythal on 11-28-2009 09:22 AM
Mark,
Also, FYI, this "background task; Full System Scan" is also deleting my software. I was told, by Symantec Support, that turning off the 'Sonar' that this would also turn off the background scanning, anyway, it popped up this morning and deleted about 20 of my production exe files. I may have stopped it but not sure what is or not there. CA Anti Spyware or Anti-Virus does not delete these.
What do we do?
I just talked to Support. To turn this scanning off go to Settings > Set Idle Time Scans to OFF. I also have SONAR Protection set to OFF.
Also, I have escalated an issue on 'Sonar' to the Symantec Programming Staff. They have to be aware of this somewhere, somehow... I suggest we all turn these off until Symantec resolves this issue.
F
I did contribute a few thoughts to this a week or so ago - was sort of hoping a sensible interaction with the Norton developers might have occurred by now but hey . .
In principle I don't want to turn SONAR off as in principle it is good idea. IMO the implementation needs to be more like a barking guard dog and less like a land mine as a way of securing ones front door though..
I suspect we have some programming talent in attendance so lets try and help Symantec out. What is the algorithm we wish they would use for SONAR and what UI would that present?
e.g.
If executable never seen before insist user navigates manually to containing folder and right click approves to run (for SONAR and scan)
If executable is new and seen elsewhere but infrequently present origin (web, installer etc) version and author information and ask for OK
Leave on 'watch' and Report any file admitted by these processes once again if they attempt low level access, further installs etc etc
If norton is password protected require password for any of the above.
If user acount is not Admin ask for admin password also
Provide code to allow the major installer packages routines to actively call a SONAR scan as a step during installation
Allow users to put Norton and SONAR in learn mode for 1 / 2/ 5/ 10/ 20/60 mins with new SONAR hits during that period just reported and automatically white listed
Anyone able to improve ?
I think the developer problem (on their personal machine that is) would be resolved by being able to exclude certain directories from SONAR or maybe just make the existing directory exclusion include SONAR as well.
Then, developers could just exclude their development compile/link/test directories.
Whether the SONAR idea is good or not, I think the basic principle should be that the users be able to turn it off, without those disturbing "at risk - fix NOW!" bells.
The recent trend is to impose the settings on the users, which is anormal. A part of them probably don't have much of a clue and prefer to stick to the standard settings, but others have specific needs and should have an "advanced user" flag allowing them to configure the system as they wish.
Symantec is reluctant to make any changes to SONAR. We have been told that we should not be using NIS2010 but rather the Symantec business products.
We install and develop software on a number of machines. This software is then isntalled on customer machines world-wide. The Internet Secutiry Suites should not surreptitiously delete software.
This software is the worst type of malware. A security vendor surreptitiously installing a feature that deletes software.
rft wrote
Symantec is reluctant to make any changes to SONAR. We have been told that we should not be using NIS2010 but rather the Symantec business products.
-----------------------------------------------------
?????????????????????????????????
Clarification needed, --- for me anyway.
Scythal
re> the users be able to turn it off, without those disturbing "at risk - fix NOW!" bells.
SONAR may be turned Off without "at risk - fix NOW!" bells. Just click "ignore"
SONAR is not totally Off ...when Off ....but, user can turn SONAR Off and avoid the "bell" with "ignore"
Regards
bjm_
rft wrote:Symantec is reluctant to make any changes to SONAR. We have been told that we should not be using NIS2010 but rather the Symantec business products.
We install and develop software on a number of machines. This software is then isntalled on customer machines world-wide. The Internet Secutiry Suites should not surreptitiously delete software.
This software is the worst type of malware. A security vendor surreptitiously installing a feature that deletes software.
I have refrained from commenting on the tone so long it is impossible for me to do so any longer.
Although the people posting here about their problems with SONAR claim to a high level of expertise and say they are professionals in software development, they sound like high school kids with a burr in the wrong place.
"This software is the worst type of malware." Indeed! Such strong hyperbole.
For most people, the software does what it is supposed to. For some people it is limiting.
Don't get me wrong; I am not disagreeing with the limiting part -- it is merely the tone and the expectation that makes me wonder at the source.
If I were developing software, it wouldn't be in an internet environment until it needed to be. Most of my development would be in an insulated environment; and if I did need to go to the internet, it wouldn't be using a computer where I would browse from one dangerous site to another; all I'd need would be a one-way firewall, such as the one provided by Windows. After I have mastered coding my software and have a coherent product, that would be the time to visit the real world and make sure it plays well with all the other apps in the playground; and that would be the time to submit the app to Symantec to make sure they don't see it as a threat.
Okay, that's my way. I suppose all these professionals with large companies are limited to a single computer they share with their younger sister and can't afford to follow my designing strategy. Fine, they should have the option to shut down Sonar. It shouldn't be too easy, but neither should it be too hard. The difference between NIS and 360, as I and others have pointed out, is customer configuration - we should have the right to configure it to me our needs and the risks we are willing to take.
I think there's a good chance it will happen. But that kind of recoding is not going to happen overnight and it certainly won't happen in response to a diatribe against Symantec. Bricks don't encourage affection.
Last, I do have to say that Symantec itself must assume some share of responsibility for what this criticism has come to. Staying out of the conversation means losing control of the conversation. So now we have all this anti-Symantec blather all other the internet (just try googling some of it and see how many hits there are). All that was needed was a show of sympathetic ears and a reasonable response. Even if that reasonable response has to be repeated over and over again. That's called "soothing". And soothing is what we need here.
Mijcar,
I think you are going to get some negative reaction from the cloud. I think you are not aware of the quality of the bloggers nor the seriousness of the problem.
Each blogger has identified his concern about 'SONAR' and how it has affected him/her and giving issues that should be addressed.
You mention, if you were developing software. This is not a "developing software" issue. This is about existing software issues.
For me, the problem is software that has been distributed and used over time and now unknowing users have downloaded the "Free Norton Upgrade". The user now clicks on the software that he/she has been using and it is not on her computer anymore.
Is that our problem? YES and NO. YES, now we have to spend our time and go and correct the issue and NO, it was not created by us nor our testing...
Norton is the one that should be testing their software...
F
MED2000 wrote:Mijcar,
I think you are going to get some negative reaction from the cloud. I think you are not aware of the quality of the bloggers nor the seriousness of the problem.
Each blogger has identified his concern about 'SONAR' and how it has affected him/her and giving issues that should be addressed.
You mention, if you were developing software. This is not a "developing software" issue. This is about existing software issues.
For me, the problem is software that has been distributed and used over time and now unknowing users have downloaded the "Free Norton Upgrade". The user now clicks on the software that he/she has been using and it is not on her computer anymore.
Is that our problem? YES and NO. YES, now we have to spend our time and go and correct the issue and NO, it was not created by us nor our testing...
Norton is the one that should be testing their software...
F
Any security product worth its name is going to look for early warning behavior. The first warning is malware signatures; the second warning is malware-like behavior. And any new application that tries to modify the registry, changes files that are intrinsic to the system, that goes places malware likes to go will trigger a warning. Once an application is ready for the big time, it will still have to be found acceptable nor just by Symantec, but by every security company's product out there.
Initially, the heart of this discussion was about developers working on their own computer and having their own product identified as a threat and removed -- while they were still working on it! That is a legitimate problem: You don't want your creation pulled out and deleted while you are working at it. I've lost six hours of work once on new code by a simple act of stupidity; I know what that kind of loss can feel like.
But now we are also talking about someone, anyone, who has released his new application into the wild and feels it should be immediately accepted as the safe thing it is.
Bull.
Even a friendly app can be dangerous. When we design software, we run the risk of bumping into something we had no reason to expect. If this can happen to a big company like Symantec (or like Microsoft, for that matter), then it can happen to anyone. So my friendly Calendar app can inadvertantly do registry damage when it is on a machine with someone else's equally friendly weather-reporting application -- because neither of us anticipated the collision between the two programs.
Maybe I am misreading you, but you seem to be saying that developers of various skill levels (some high, some low) have a right to develop and market or simply give away their creations to the general public without beta testing, without security testing, without validation at their own personal whim. I wish that were true and also safe -- it would make my own developing a lot easier. But looking at this from the point-of-view of the consumer, these developers are nothing more than street corner guys flipping open their jackets to show me their wares. I need some protection from the sociopaths among them.
Once I have developed my application, I need to prove it is safe and that means it has to pass the various security test obstacles legitimately put in their path by security companies. And if my application trips their security warning system, then it is time for my application to identify itself as safe and then the companies can release modifications to accomodate my product or perhaps I will have to make the modifications.
My gosh, think how easy it would be to write a user friendly application to keep track of upcoming movies, for example, and to bury in that application a time bomb set to go off on Aug. 21, 2011. And on that date, 200,000 people will find all their personal documents zeroed out and a rootkit deep inside, besides. Crazy? Hardly. This kind of malware has already been out there doing its thing for a long time.
So you get my support in terms of a product that allows you room to develop. You do not get my blessing for a product to be used on other people's computers that will blindly accept the behavior of any application they happen to acquire on their computer.
Message Edited by mijcar on 11-29-2009 03:53 PM
Let me clarify things. I have over 40 years of experience in developing software, e.g. O/S's, networks, device drivers, real-time control systems, etc.
The software that has been deleted by SONAR does not explicitly access the internet. Any internet access would be through the MICROSOFT and INTEL provided API's and run-time environments. Such access is generally implicit in the design of the operating system's file handling.
Application software that has been unchanged for years is deleted quietly by SONAR upon activation. We and and our customers depend on this software. It is mission critical to our customers. This software has been scanned and analyzed by NORTON NIS 2009 and by many other vendors' security suites. No problems have ever been found until the advent of NIS 2010.
NORTON/SYMANTEC does not get the calls from customers that the production systems are down. They do not have to diagnose and repair the damage caused. They do not incur the loss of revenue and customer satisfaction caused by such problems. NORTON/SYMANTEC are generally immune from the end-user criticism since it is assumed that their products are providing protection of the customers' network and systems.
Malware is short for bad software. By any standard SONAR in NIS 2010 is bad software.
Hi, I'm new to this forum so forgive me if I'm on the wong thread.
My problem with Sonnar is that it is deleting slide show exe fles that I've created using WNsoft PicturesToExe programme.
A full sysytem scan with Norton IS 2010 only revealed tracking cookies as a problem. However, as soon as I clicked to open a PicturesToExe file a waring Soonar window appeared and the file was deleted before I could prevent it. NB Sonnar indicated I had chosen this action but I had not.
As I created the file for my own use it is not surprising it was designated as 'little used'. Furthermore it took me many hours to create the slide show so I am extremely upset.
Questions.
1. I cannot see that I can switch onnar off, is this possible?
2. Is it possible to retrieve the files that Sonnar has deleted.
I never had this problem with any of the earlier versions of Norton IS and am now regretting upgrading.
Any advice, please?