Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bad BitDefender Update Clobbers Windows PCs

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the it-actually-dispatches-a-man-with-a-bat dept.

Bug 150

alphadogg writes "Users of the BitDefender antivirus software started flooding the company's support forums Saturday, apparently after a faulty antivirus update caused 64-bit Windows machines to stop working. The company acknowledged the issue in a note explaining the problem. 'Due to a recent update it is possible that BitDefender detects several Windows and BitDefender files as infected with Trojan.FakeAlert.5,' the company said. The acknowledgment came after BitDefender users had logged hundreds of posts on the topic. Some complained of being unable to reboot their systems."

cancel ×

150 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How Appropriate (4, Insightful)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 4 years ago | (#31557944)

Valid files detected as "FakeAlert"? Wow, irony DOES go a long way.

Re:How Appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31557964)

well, two negatives make a positive.

Re:How Appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31558354)

right

Re:How Appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31558546)

Not if you add them together.

How many times does this happen? (3, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558662)

And why hasn't the "security industry" started to validate hashes and signatures and checksums on KNOWN GOOD FILES yet?

Seriously. Identifying the safe files is easier than identifying the infected ones.

Re:How many times does this happen? (3, Interesting)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558782)

Sure.
It is called trusted computing.
But who is the gatekeeper of trust?
In order to only allow "KNOWN GOOD FILES" you need a white-list.
That means that no mere user is going to be write his own software.
That means that small software producers are going to have to go through an arduous and prohibitively expensive vetting process in order to be white-listed.
In practice this means that only Microsoft and its partners will be able to produce software for your pc at a reasonable price.
This could even mean that user generated data files are not trusted and therefor not allowed, making the pc a device for consuming content.
Perhaps the user could produce content remotely through software as a service providers, who would either charge highly or claim ownership rights to your content.

Sounds really nice to you?

Re:How many times does this happen? (1)

stg (43177) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559140)

It's a big step to presume that the user won't be able to just click on an Ignore button and continue. After all, that's how it works now on most security software, isn't it?

Small software producers already have to go begging the antivirus companies to whitelist their software when it hits one of their poorly made signatures. I've seen several cases where they get some random malware with a common software protection system and suddenly any software that uses that protection system shows up as a threat (I'm thinking of Armadillo right now, which had MANY instances of that, although WinLicense did once too).

The procedure depends on the AV vendor - they usually have some form to report false positives. I've had to report it twice for one of my apps (which uses Armadillo). In one case (can't remember the company) it was pretty fast, on the other (Symantec) it took like a month and was probably part of a general fix up...

Re:How many times does this happen? (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559252)

You've gone from "files signed by known providers should be whitelisted" to "zomg end of software freedom!" which is crazy. Having a valid signature means the file can be skipped, but not having one doesn't mean the file would necessarily be identified as bad. I agree with the OP - why the hell isn't BitDefender whitelisting files signed with known good keys? Surely that's one of the first things a virus scanner should implement?

Re:How many times does this happen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560878)

Norton already does that. A customer had a program removed just because it is used by less that 10 Norton users.

Re:How many times does this happen? (2, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558990)

And why hasn't the "security industry" started to validate hashes and signatures and checksums on KNOWN GOOD FILES yet?

It's a good question but a better one would be 'Why do virus scanners have to exist at all?'

It's deeply sick to have to check all files against a huge list of checksums of magic incantations. It's better, but still not good to keep a list of checksums of files that don't contain magic windows-trashing incantations. The real solution is to not use a OS that is so easy to subvert.

Re:How many times does this happen? (1)

Liquidrage (640463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559862)

Yes, but the abacus isn't a very practical computing device.

Re:How many times does this happen? (1, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31561008)

Yes, but the abacus isn't a very practical computing device.

There are any number of other computing devices that don't get viruses and are not abacuses. Linux is just one of these.

Re:How many times does this happen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560084)

The real solution is to not use a OS that is so easy to subvert.

Windows security is certainly improving (fuck off if you think otherwise), but it's really a case of educating dumbass users. Linux is only 'more secure' because it's not generally used by dumbasses.

So... do you have a more practical solution? Didn't think so.

Re:How many times does this happen? (0, Flamebait)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31561046)

Windows security is certainly improving (fuck off if you think otherwise), but it's really a case of educating dumbass users. Linux is only 'more secure' because it's not generally used by dumbasses.

So... do you have a more practical solution? Didn't think so.

You can't get good security by improving something that's not designed to be secure. You can't educate users away from design problems, you have to replace the bad design.

PWN? (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31557960)

PWN.

PR - from blue screen to no screen! (2, Funny)

voodoo cheesecake (1071228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31557998)

They could have claimed it was all a part of a mock cyber-attack! Oh joy!

Or maybe... (5, Funny)

Hansele (579672) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558036)

Or maybe they should have put up a payment screen on their site, "We're sorry, your antivirus subscription has expired. To prevent your computer from being exposed to malware and virii, we have taken the proactive step of disabling your computer until you have made payment. For the low renewal fee plus a small reactivation fee of $199, we will be happy to walk you through the re-enablement process. Have a nice secure day!"

Re:Or maybe... (1)

voodoo cheesecake (1071228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558092)

Using PayPal of course.

Re:Or maybe... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31558222)

Viruses. Virii is fake latinization and incorrect.

Re:Or maybe... (0)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558366)

What about cactus -> cactii?

Same pattern.

Is it

( ) Virus doesn't follow the pattern
( ) Virii is correct
( ) Cactii is wrong

Re:Or maybe... (1)

quantumplacet (1195335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558440)

well, cactii is definitely wrong, its cacti. virus does follow a pattern, just a different pattern than cactus, due to differing latin roots.

Re:Or maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31558448)

( ) Virus doesn't follow the pattern
( ) Virii is correct
(x) Cactii is wrong

The plural of cactus is cacti. Have I been trolled?

Re:Or maybe... (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558490)

No, if I had mod points and hadn't posted here I'd give you an Informative.

Re:Or maybe... (4, Informative)

vbraga (228124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558510)

Not a native speaker, but from alt.usage.english FAQ [archive.org] :

Not all Latin words ending in "-us" had plurals in "-i". "Apparatus", "cantus", "coitus", "hiatus", "impetus", "Jesus", "nexus", "plexus", "prospectus", and "status" were 4th declension in Latin, and had plurals in "-us" with a long "u". "Corpus", "genus", and "opus" were 3rd declension, with plurals "corpora", "genera", and "opera". "Virus" is not attested in the plural in Latin, and is of a rare form (2nd declension neuter in -us) that makes it debatable what the Latin plural would have been; the only plural in English is "viruses". "Omnibus" and "rebus" were not nominative nouns in Latin. "Ignoramus" was not a noun in Latin.

Emphasis mine.

Re:Or maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31559240)

Since y'all ain't a native speaker, we don't need none of your highfalutin fancy ways. Gotta solve this here like MEN with broken beer bottles and a snarl.

Re:Or maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560094)

How exactly are you able to walk with that stick rammed up your ass?

Re:Or maybe... (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558678)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_form_of_words_ending_in_-us [wikipedia.org]

The English plural of "virus" is "viruses"[1].

Mass noun in Latin

Virus comes to English from Latin. The Latin word vrus (the indicates a long i) means "poison; venom", denoting the venom of a snake. This Latin word is probably related to the Greek (ios) meaning "venom" or "rust" and the Sanskrit word visham meaning "toxic, poison".[2]

Since vrus in antiquity denoted something uncountable, it was a mass noun. Mass nouns — such as air, rice, and helpfulness in English — pluralize only under special circumstances, hence the non-existence of plural forms in the texts.[3]

Re:Or maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31559780)

Not same pattern.

Cactus -> Cacti.
Vir -> Viri

(Vir means man by the way. Look at the first line of the Aeneid)

The 'pattern' is 'us' -> 'i', so I don't know where you get cactii from, that would presuppose the existence of a word 'cactius'. Virus is actually a very rare word found in something like 2 places, in both cases found among other, non-latin words (Greek, probably), and is never listed in the plural form, which would probably be... virus (with a stress on the u)

Re:Or maybe... (1)

MrMr (219533) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559984)

Virus is probably fourth declension, and thus has a -us in the plural as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Fourth_declension_.28u.29 [wikipedia.org]
unlike the better known second declension nouns that floow thus -us->-i rule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Second_declension_.28o.29 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Or maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31558476)

> Viruses. Virii is fake latinization and incorrect.

Do you want to write about it on your blag?

Re:Or maybe... (1)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559000)

What do you have against blag people? Blag people, blag people, taste blag, walk like people.

Re:Or maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560346)

What do you have against blag people? Blag people, blag people, taste blag, walk like people.

Anuses.

Re:Or maybe... (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558736)

Great! Now we have grammar nazis in multiple languages.

So secure, NOTHING will run (4, Funny)

Hansele (579672) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558000)

Its a new security paradigm. The newly locked down computer will not run anything, and therefore no virii, malware, bots, or solitaire, will run. Truly they've created the "most secure antivirus ever".

Re:So secure, NOTHING will run (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31558020)

Who has the most secure OS now? Take THAT Linux and Mac fanboys!

Re:So secure, NOTHING will run (2, Funny)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558320)

Who has the most secure OS now? Take THAT Linux and Mac fanboys!

Ouch. I feel so... insecure now!

Re:So secure, NOTHING will run (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31558558)

Don"t worry.I"m sure one of the Mac users won't mind holding you in a comforting embrace.

Re:So secure, NOTHING will run (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560426)

Their soggy, brainless tenderness will surely make everything better.

Re:So secure, NOTHING will run (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31558944)

Windows Vista (and probably Windows 7) is already more secure than MacOS and at least as secure as Linux. That was already proven by Charlie Miller at CanSecWest.

Wait..!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31559036)

I have a virus with the same heuristics as kernel32.dll. I think
it will run ok. (32 bit only)

Come on guys.... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31558002)

I had this happen to me yesterday, I though I got hit with a real virus, so I reformatted. At first I could not log in with my password, so I retrieved that with barts PE, then my desktop showed no installed icons or anything. It was bizzarre. wtf

Update Filter / Schedule (-1, Flamebait)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558014)

It is too bad that Microsoft has learned what we have all known for years. It's software is a virus, infecting our lives and bank accounts for years. I wish there was a way to filter updates. The addition of Hide Update was a major improvement but now if we could just Block any Service Pack, BitDefender, and patch less than 2 months old from updating that would be wonderful. It is not like microsoft reacts in a timely manner to its vulnerabilities anyway, what is another 2-6 months of being unprotected? I think the people in QA need a pay bump. The only reason I can come up with is they are payed so low that after they are done milking Microsoft and get fired they can always find a better paying job in the food industry.

Re:Update Filter / Schedule (3, Informative)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558058)

BitDefender is a third party anti-virus package.

Re:Update Filter / Schedule (1)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558142)

your right sorry I jumped the gun and confused bitdefender with windows defender

Re:Update Filter / Schedule (2, Informative)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558228)

The shame is that even though you put so much time into that post, you didn't bother knowing what the fuck you were talking about.

Re:Update Filter / Schedule (5, Funny)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558592)

Thats the motto of my life my friend.

Re:Update Filter / Schedule (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558176)

BitDefender is a third party anti-virus package.

Not any more ...

How many people still have their Windows recovery CD (needed to work around the problem) or know where to find it under all the other obsolete CDs?

Re:Update Filter / Schedule (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558190)

The real irony here is, that you even NEED a 3rd party application to make your machine secure. The bit of irony on the tail end is just for amusement - the security software kills your machine, LMAO

Re:Update Filter / Schedule (2, Insightful)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558534)

Well, you really don't need a 3rd party security application to make your machine secure. We just saw the other day http://ask.slashdot.org/story/10/03/18/1831246/What-Free-Antivirus-Do-You-Install-On-Windows [slashdot.org] that many people have good things to say about MS Security Essentials as an anti-virus program. As advanced users, we also all know what the weak link is: end users who click on and run any old thing. Honestly, take a modern version of Windows (Vista or Windows 7) and the out of box (and on by default) firewall coupled with the automatic "run programs as a standard user even if you are an administrator" (UAC) and Windows itself isn't "insecure" like it was in the days of Windows XP. This is why current attacks are mostly social engineering / trojan ("run this for free stuff!" or "enter your password here"), or instead application level attacks (Adobe Reader, IE, Firefox). Gone are the days of the Blaster type "you are owned if your machine is just on the network" attacks. Even the most recent SMBv2 vulnerability and subsequent attacks required that you modified your default firewall settings to allow serving files from your machine.

There really isn't a need for a 3rd party product here and the major ones (McAfee, Symantec, etc.) slow your machine and act like malware themselves.

If anything, user education about what they should trust and what they can safely run goes much farther than anti-virus or anti-malware can.

Re:Update Filter / Schedule (2, Informative)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559102)

The real irony here is, that you even NEED a 3rd party application to make your machine secure.

It doesn't even do that. The third party application takes time to react to new viruses so can never do more than reduce the insecurity.

Re:Update Filter / Schedule (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31558136)

you good sir, are an idiot. This update has nothing todo with Windows updates. Before you go on a rant about something you obviously have no clue about, how about RTFA first.

I guess you must work in the food industry after all, probably the dumb fuck who always messes up my food when I go out to eat. Perhaps the root of the problem for you, was that your mom did drugs and drank while you were developing, and then she opted for a water-birth and you drowned a bit too long after you fell out of her cunt.

Do us a favor, and just go rest in the middle of a busy highway during rush-hour traffic.

What does this say about "some" windows users? (1)

voodoo cheesecake (1071228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558026)

FTA: "Some complained of being unable to reboot their systems."

Balderdash! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31559124)

I've been rebooting my machine every 5 minutes since
Windows 3.0. It works fine.

This happened to me (2, Interesting)

ProfessorKaos64 (1772382) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558078)

This actually happened to me, at first I couldn't log in with my password, had to use Bart's PE disc to reset that, then I couldn't get any icons on my desktop of use the start button, then just a black screen, I thought I had a virus for real, so I reformatted , this was yesterday, wish I could have seen this but I don't know how they would have reversed it anyway.

Re:This happened to me (4, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558268)

That is why I use and would recommend Comodo Time Machine [comodo.com] as it gives you a nice little screen before boot where you just hit the home key and can restore your machine from snapshot before the little boo boo. And if the Bitdefender burn has turned you off of them I would try Comodo AV/Firewall [comodo.com] from the same company. Both are free, no nags or need to register, and I have been running it on both 32 and 64 bit XP and Windows 7.

Note-not affiliated with the company, just a humble PC repairman that has tried just about every AV and security software out there and found Comodo to be the best all around. I have been running them on XP X64 for a couple of years now and never had any show stoppers like this. In fact the only problem I've ever seen with a Comodo product is you can't run Time Machine in a dual boot with Windows 7 and XP because 7 changes drive letters, but even then there wasn't any hangup or problems, it simply wouldn't install.

But if your machine is running a single OS Time Machine can keep problems like TFA from happening. I have had family members bork their machines beyond booting and with Time Machine I was able to walk them through restoring from snapshot in under 15 minutes. hell of a lot better than a multi-hour reinstall.

Re:This happened to me (2, Interesting)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558336)

I only run Windows software in a VM these days - all the stuff I want to be fast, stable, secure and safe I do under Ubuntu. Windows 7/xp both work fine under the free VM Player. None of this malware crap for me, thanks.

Re:This happened to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31559250)

I just hope for Linux to gain good market share. Then people will realize how much vulnerable Linux really is. And there will be flood of nasty malware targeted at Linux. The poor users wont even know if the Linux machine is infected as they are not technically sound enough to even understand more user-friendly OS like Windows in first place. Just one simple trick, insert a line "rm -rf /" in some software installer bash script and distribute it and see how many nerds fail to detect it only until the machine is pwned.

Re:This happened to me (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559868)

You talk like a Microsoft marketeer.

The newer generation of *ubuntu users will only get their aps from the official repositories (yeah I know, a weird concept to the MS world) and be protected that way.
Hard core Linux fans would find your type of exploit before it could do harm, after all they'd only use Open Source aps, right?

Re:This happened to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31558522)

Wow, I love how they just completely ripped off their logo design from Apple's Time Machine icon. Other than 3D-ifying it, he only change they made was turning the circular arrow around the clock about 180 degrees. They even left the time on the clock at 4:00, just like Apple's.

And all the haters wonder why Apple trademarks/patents every last thing they do anymore. THAT is why-- they got tired of being the free R&D and design department for everyone.

Re:This happened to me (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559076)

What does Time Machine do different than System Restore?

I'm wagering (not 100% sure) that System Restore would also have been able to repair the parent's issue, it sounds like he didn't bother to try it before reformatting. But it definitely can replace lost system DLL files.

Re:This happened to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31559548)

From the Comodo Time Machine download page [comodo.com] :

How is CTM functionally different or better than the regular Windows System Restore (WSR) feature?
WSR only restores certain elements such as the registry and system files. CTM restores your entire system– including files, folders and installed programs. This is invaluable for many reasons. If you accidentally delete important data you can instantly reclaim it. If your files become infected by viruses you can restore them to a time before the infection occurred. Incidentally, CTM is perfectly compatible with WSR and you can run both together quite happily. However, you may want to consider disabling WSR in order to save disk space and resource usage.

Sounds like GoBack (1)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | more than 4 years ago | (#31561418)

Allows you to boot into Time Machine if Windows is so hosed that you cannot get to System Restore? Sounds like GoBack.

Re:This happened to me (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559132)

" That is why I use and would recommend Comodo Time Machine "

This is why I would recommend a Mac, or at least something other than Windows. The anti-malware that you have to use on Windows is sometimes almost as bad as the malware itself.

Windows, in and of itself, has become a stable, useful operating system. It's come a long way from the unstable 9X days, and truthfully, in some ways its easier to use than OS X. Were it not for the security issue, I might still be running Windows at home. But the cost in using Windows now... the cost in time, hassle, an dollars because of its security issues... just isn't worth it to me anymore. And if one Linux distro ever came to dominate the field and get the same kind of commercial support the Mac does... I think you'd see a mortal wound at Microsoft.

Redmond needs to pull an OS X and completely re-write the next version from the ground up.... write it from a completely different direction, make it completely incompatible with previous versions. Backwards compatibility with vulnerable previous versions is only one of the things that doom Windows... but it would be the right place to start in fixing their problems.

what incompetent boobs (4, Insightful)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558082)

you would think they would at least test updates on a few different systems (including the 64 bit systems) before releasing it to customers

Re:what incompetent boobs (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31558166)

Let me answer in the manner of a hammer legion member poster on a Steam forum:

Wrks fine 4 me. Must b ur computer. loL!! Time 2 upgrade.

Re:what incompetent boobs (1)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558714)

What upgrade path from 64-bit Windows do you recommend? 128-bit or 32-bit Windows? Or Linux? I'm all for that last one ;-)

Re:what incompetent boobs (3, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559700)

Well, Windows NT version numbers have gone 3.11, 4, 2000, 2003, 7, so the upgrade from 64-bit Windows must be... -512 bit Windows?

Re:what incompetent boobs (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31558270)

It's not that simple in reality. Obviously you can test RTM, service packs, etc, but system files can also be updated in individual security patches. It's simply not feasible to test every single security patch for every single supported system and platform, at least not if you want timely definition updates. Perhaps in the future Microsoft could make all released binaries available for AV vendors to regression test against.

Re:what incompetent boobs (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558634)

It's not that simple in reality. Obviously you can test RTM, service packs, etc, but system files can also be updated in individual security patches. It's simply not feasible to test every single security patch for every single supported system and platform, at least not if you want timely definition updates

An excellent point, and if only a small number of users were affected, it may be relevant. Unfortunately, at least based on the article and the volume of reports, all you need is a run-of-the-mill 64-bit Windows install of some description in order to trigger the issue.

Re:what incompetent boobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31559110)

Actually, it's quite feasible to download every patch from Microsoft and test your antivirus software against each and every one of them. Not doing so is negligent.

Re:what incompetent boobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560186)

Have you ever actually tried to download all the patches for a particular operating system (especially one that you are not running)? Microsoft doesn't make this easy to accomplish. I don't know if they provide an enterprise service that simplifies this, but the publicly available options are useless. Go ahead and try to find all the patches for Windows Server 2003 x64 (just to pick a random version). I'll wait.

Re:what incompetent boobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31558288)

They might have. You wouldn't necessarily think that you need to restart after an antivirus update

Re:what incompetent boobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31558382)

The real question is, are they 36D boobs?

Re:what incompetent boobs (1)

Platinum Dragon (34829) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558514)

This seems to be a semi-common issue. One place I kill time at uses Trend Micro on a couple of machines, and two updates within the past eight months have broken networking in funky ways that made updating impossible until workarounds were determined.

Quick (0)

linzeal (197905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558126)

Quick, someone send Microsoft a 64 bit version of Vista and Windows 7.

Re:Quick (1)

dmacleod808 (729707) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558244)

I dare say they already have copies... and they are probably running windows security essentials Joke = fail

Re:Quick (2, Insightful)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558330)

Quick, someone send Microsoft a 64 bit version of Vista and Windows 7.

BitDefender and Windows Defender are two different things.

Re:Quick (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559106)

Look, I know this is Slashdot and we like bashing Microsoft but... what the hell?

Don't you mean, "sent BitDefender a 64-bit version of Vista and Windows 7?" Or are you making a joke going way over my head?

What does Microsoft have to do with a bug in BitDefender?

Re:Quick (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559924)

What does Microsoft have to do with a bug in BitDefender?

The reason d'etre for BitDefender = Microsoft...

I see a market for a new product: (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31558154)

Anticlobber software. To protect your computer against misbehaving antivirus software.

Nothing new (0, Redundant)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558204)

I remember a few years ago that an update to the compulsory antivirus software on some of our PCs at work went ahead and deleted some important Windows system files if you had it configured to auto-scan the disk; mine wasn't so I was able to disable it before losing the files, but anyone who let it run overnight came into work to find a dead PC waiting for them.

Trusting your AV too far... (4, Informative)

runward (1772390) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558232)

This happened to me, too... bitdefender would flag nearly any file, and it first flagged a file that I had just updated, so I was genuinely concerned. The next file is flagged, however, was usbstor.sys, so I knew the AV was probably wrong.

Some people were running virus scans... tens of thousands of false detection, and all of the files were quarantined or deleted... it was a really bad situation for many. I'm not sure how non-technical users fared.

I use bitdefender on my computer only - I like the aggressive detection capabilities and reporting options. However, no one else in my house wants to know what their AV is doing - they just want it to work - and bitdefender is probably the worst option for them.

Re:Trusting your AV too far... (1)

origin29 (535097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558938)

It's already hard enough to get non-tech-savvy users to use AV. It doesn't help that there's a possibility of it falsely detecting Windows system files and *its own files* as infected. This stuff is certainly not trivial, but come on..

Re:Trusting your AV too far... (1)

carterhawk001 (681941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559194)

I ended up just restoring off a backup and re-updating bit defender. Whatever update I got no longer had the faulty code in it. I emphasized to my friends and family the importance of having a system backup available for just such emergencies.

poor windows users (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31558258)

well not poor, they paid the $250+ for Windows 64 bit, lamers...

LAWL (-1, Troll)

wampus (1932) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558300)

I use Linux so this naturally does not effect me! Linux is the only security I need, unlike that Mick€y$£oth garbage you lamers insist on using.

Re:LAWL (1)

ProfessorKaos64 (1772382) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558394)

Thanks for the insightful post

Re:LAWL (1)

wampus (1932) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558406)

I do try, but obviously not hard enough.

I've had similar with COMODO (2, Informative)

thatbloke83 (1529851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558438)

Another Antivirus software package (COMODO) has caused problems of this nature for me at work - it updated, asked to reboot and on rebooting we were just presented with a black screen, the desktop wouldn't load. Fortunately we were able to reboot into safe mode and just uninstall it until there was an update issued, but it was still part of a morning lost... While it's impossible to test every configuration ever, I'd have thought that something that would affect EVERY system in an office using this software should have been picked up during testing... Well you learn from your mistakes. If it happens again, there will be hell to pay, I'm sure.

Re:I've had similar with COMODO (1)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558568)

Interestingly enough, even companies that test every software update before rolling it out on their network often pass virusscanner database updates untested.
This means they are at constant risk of disabling their entire computer network due to a mistake of the virusscanner maker.

Re:I've had similar with COMODO (1)

Dumnezeu (1673634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558838)

Oh, the irony! [slashdot.org]

Re:I've had similar with COMODO (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559276)

I noticed that too.

I think the lesson is that no AV is perfect...

Re:I've had similar with COMODO (1)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559482)

There was another definition update for Comodo Antivirus (around the middle of last year, I think) that caused the CPU to peg at 100% usage on Windows XP 32-bit and possibly other versions of Windows.

Quick Scanner (1)

vacarul (1624873) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558792)

I had BitDefender Quick Scanner (Firefox extension) and two days ago it was updated. After that no flash was displayed on any website. Only an "install missing plug-in..." message. I reinstalled the plug-in but the message remained. I went to their website to notice them but you must have a product key or something like that, and Quick Scanner was not even in the products list (it's a free add-on). At that point I gave up...

Re:Quick Scanner (2, Funny)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559146)

Flash is a huge security nightmare. Maybe BitDefender was doing the right thing there.

This isn't the first time... (1)

TermV (49182) | more than 4 years ago | (#31558892)

A bad Bitdefender update prevented all Windows binaries from running a few months ago. It would start popping up errors saying all my services were failing and wouldn't launch any applications. I actually formatted and reinstalled my laptop because I thought the whole thing was infected with a virus. What a pain in the ass.

Insanity (1)

dbcad7 (771464) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559212)

It never ceases to amaze me how much Windows users will endure.. Perhaps they are masochists and enjoy the pain of having their system occasionally rendered useless.. Living a life full of worry that their machine is an accidental click away from hours of removing crap from their system, followed by weeks of wondering whether or not they got all the cancer out.. Perhaps they enjoy the challenge of constantly defending themselves.. Proving that the are SMARTER than the other masochists that get burned.. Keeping your system safe has become just another game, and maybe that is fun.. I don't know.. And then they are paying some company that is supposed to put them in "God Mode" in the game they are playing.. but this protection costs them in money, and slows their protected system down.. often blocking legitimate things that they want to do, so they get an extra level of fun trying to figure out how to get their protection to allow them to use their PC.. And then even with all of this, they still occasionally get burned.. laugh it all off (after the anger and frustration has subsided), reinstall and reboot the game, and beg form more.. "Thank you sir may I have another ?"

The cure is worse than the disease (4, Insightful)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559570)

One of the things that precipitated my move to Linux was the way Kaspersky -- at the time, the top-rated security suite -- was shutting down my LAN. There were lots of posts on the official forums complaining about the problem, a handful of useless responses from users guessing at which part of the suite might be the source of the problem, and about which of the undocumented menu options might disable that part of the suite, and one short, incomprehensible message from one of the developers, suggesting they were looking into the problem, from several months before.

My experience with security software for Windows is that they bog down the operating system, disable basic features of the operating system without warning, and cause frequent crashes -- the very problems that they warn malicious software may cause. Simply put, malicious software *may* cause problems for Windows, but most third-party security software *will*.

To Microsoft's credit, they finally sealed some of the fundamental security holes with Vista and Windows 7, and they offer a decent security suite for free, so there's really no longer any reason to buy one of these wretched third-party security suites.

On the whole, though, you'll still get better security by switching to Linux, or at least Mac OS X.

Re:The cure is worse than the disease (3, Funny)

Teun (17872) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560090)

To Microsoft's credit, they finally sealed some of the fundamental security holes with Vista and Windows 7, and they offer a decent security suite for free,

You have an amusing way of explaining how MS applied a (yet to be proven) band-aid to their self-inflicted wounds.

Time is Worthless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560490)

Linux is only free if your time is worthless.

Windows users will surely be compensated for this, since paying 499.99 for Windows entitles them to some form of premium support or compensation...Right?

Wait, I *don't* get any compensation for this?

I don't get any support?

Wow, 499.99 just bought me a useless brick.

Windows, only worth 499.99 if your time is so worthless, you have to pay other people to listen to you.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?