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!

Symantec Fires CEO Steve Bennett

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the moving-on dept.

Businesses 111

wiredmikey (1824622) writes "Symantec on Thursday announced that CEO Steve Bennett was terminated by the security company and has been replaced by Michael Brown as interim president and CEO. Bennett, who also resigned from Symantec's board of directors, took the top position at Symantec in July 2012, after former president and CEO Enrique Salem was pushed out by the Board of Directors. In April 2013, Bennett, told attendees at its own Vision Conference, that the company was changing, and acknowledged that Symantec 'lacked strategy' when it came to dealing with acquisitions. His plan was to move the company forward slowly, but consistently and make Symantec easier to do business with. That strategy, or at least the execution of it, hasn't impressed the board of directors, it seems."

cancel ×

111 comments

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

Golden parachute? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46539471)

Ah, but how much was his severance package worth?

 

And has he received new offers already?

Re:Golden parachute? (1)

kav2k (1545689) | about 4 months ago | (#46539681)

What severance package?

"...was terminated by the security company..."

Golden casket, I guess. Man, corporate politics those days.

Golden parachute? $14 million. (4, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 4 months ago | (#46540287)

"What severance package?"

$14 million, apparently. See this WSJ article: Symantec Fires CEO Steve Bennett [wsj.com] . How will he live? Should we donate some money to keep him off the street?

Have you called Symantec in the last 2 years? Or gotten emails from Symantec support? My experience was that everyone with whom I talked was amazingly disfunctional. That's what the Symantec CEO meant when he said [computerworld.com] , "Our system is just broken".

Symantec has contracts with the U.S. government. People in the U.S. government don't seem to me to understand much about the technology. I'm guessing the contracts are a waste of tax money.

Re:Golden parachute? $14 million. (2)

jrumney (197329) | about 4 months ago | (#46541091)

Have you called Symantec in the last 2 years? Or gotten emails from Symantec support? My experience was that everyone with whom I talked was amazingly disfunctional. That's what the Symantec CEO meant when he said, "Our system is just broken".

It's good that he can see the problem, but a CEO's job is to take action, not to just complain about it or initiate pointless reorgs that don't really fix anything.

Psychic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46542921)

Yep, because all CEOs are psychic and know whether a reorg is going to work before they initiate it.

Golden parachute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46539473)

Ah, but how much was his severance package worth?

And is he entertaining new job offers already?

Re:Golden parachute? (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 4 months ago | (#46539819)

Golden shmolden. This news made me want more of what I've just had!

There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smooth" (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46539493)

Have them make a product worth buying.

To quote a former boss of mine, "We don't say anything bad about the competition. so we say 'Symantec has really nice looking boxes'."

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (3, Informative)

mlts (1038732) | about 4 months ago | (#46539707)

They have products worth buying. Namely, the whole PGP desktop/mobile IP.

If Symantec sold the desktop version with more features and with a hardware crypto token, all for a reasonable price, virtually every geek would buy it, if only for a place to store the mandatory private key, even if it never gets used.

Backup Exec and NetBackup, similar. They need to take a page from Tolis's BRU and allow complete installation of their software for restores without needing serial numbers. That way, people don't have the catch 22 of needing info stored on a backup to unlock the backup program to restore... Making a version that can compete with Retrospect would be useful for SMBs as well. Heck, just make a smaller version of the NetBackup Appliance and sell that for $599.

Symantec has a lot of cool stuff (heck, they used to be the main compiler maker for Mac until the PowerPC days.) They just need to start bringing it out and consider going for volume. A couple thousand people paying $20 for PGP desktop for personal use/security will make more money than 1-2 people paying $250 for the same program.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#46539851)

Unfortunately, Symantec seems to have a bit of the reverse Midas touch going on: they aquire a formerly promising company, it turns to shit, much less any attempts at internal development.

PGP: is it cool? Definitely, noble lineage, strong encryption for the masses, etc. Has Symantec done anything worth mentioning, aside from (perhaps, this is Symantec here) compatibility updates since they bought it? Crickets. (And, as for the hardware token, fully integrated USB ones are nice; but smartcards are pretty much 100% commodified, and designed to securely store private keys, so even a hardware token would bring little more than convenience to the table). Backup Exec is fiddly, undistinguished, and nontrivially expensive, and just isn't looking any better with age. The Altiris acquisition, while minor in the grand scheme of their operations, they utterly fucked up(take a formerly relatively niche product; but a niche product with a niche, and turn it into a shitty attempt at being a competitor to MS SMS? What could go wrong?).

Honestly, the only surprising thing about Symantec's 'strategy' is that it isn't hurting them more. They haven't developed anything worth buying out of the bargain bin in god-knows-how-long, and they manage to impart nontrivial negative value to anybody they buy almost immediately. Take them out back, shoot them, and give the money back to the shareholders...

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (1)

krammit (540755) | about 4 months ago | (#46539907)

Reverse Midas touch? I believe you mean the Ballmer squirt.


I'll let myself out.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#46539953)

At least Ballmer has the decency to sometimes attempt things in-house, Symantec is more like watching the MS acquisition of Danger/Sidekick all the time, at a slightly smaller scale.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 4 months ago | (#46540233)

At least Ballmer has the decency to sometimes attempt things in-house, Symantec is more like watching the MS acquisition of Danger/Sidekick all the time, at a slightly smaller scale.

You mean like the MS acquisition of Nokia?

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#46540295)

I don't know whether or not it will actually save Windows Phone whatever version, markets have traditionally been rather cruel to everyone except the first one or two vendors, and the OEM cloneshops who scrape by on margins that wouldn't even keep the lights on at some fancy corporate campus; but MS' takeover of Nokia looks far better executed than their takeover of Danger.

With Danger, they shelled out substantial money for a formerly fairly vigorous company and turned it into... 'Project Pink', while simultaneously pissing off Verizon, probably the single most powerful carrier in the US, and wasting substantial amounts of time reinventing the wheel because Sidekicks didn't run WinCE and that was ideologically unacceptable. They then went on to one of the fastest launch-to-cancellation cycles in contemporary history. Then, just to add injury to insult, they lost all their existing sidekick customers' data in a high-profile fiasco that highlighted the downsides of the cloud-centric model they were hoping to promote(and probably didn't endear them any further to carriers who had been selling Danger handsets by the boatload in the past). Good job on that one, guys.

With Nokia, by contrast, they picked up a respected hardware OEM to serve as their lead design vassal for phones shipping with their OS, killed off Nokia's remaining attempts to build or modernize their own OS, and all for a relative pittance. Made Google's Motorola buy look like amateur improv comedy hour.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 months ago | (#46541113)

"At least Ballmer has the decency to sometimes attempt things in-house, Symantec is more like watching the MS acquisition of Danger/Sidekick all the time, at a slightly smaller scale."

When Peter Norton still ran the company, the Norton Utilities were "the shit", as people say. I bought a license for the Symantec version of Norton Utilities + Antivirus, after they bought Peter out. The "subscription" to the Antivirus updates was good for a year. I let it expire. I didn't bother to continue updating the other tools. They just weren't my time.

I used the original character-based Norton Commander as my file manager as long as I was running Windows, up through Vista. I still keep a copy around for XP machines, and I have its successor on my telephone right now. But Symantec bought up Norton Utilities, bloated and gunked it up, and I dropped them right there. I tried to use their antivirus product a couple of times after that but even when most features were turned off, it used up so many system resources I always ended up turning it off anyway.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (3, Informative)

mlts (1038732) | about 4 months ago | (#46540037)

I agree with you. I don't know what to call it, other than a reverse Midas touch.

The ironic thing is that Symantec's PGP was the only program available for OS X that did FDE encryption before FileVault 2 came out. It was fairly messy how it loaded in, but it did work and did protect all data on the HDD.

PGPDisk also has the ability to grow/shrink an encrypted volume, which is a nice thing to have. TrueCrypt sort of has this capability, but uses sparse files (i.e. if the file gets copied via Samba, it will take up the full space given, even though most of the encrypted volume is zeroes.)

Going back earlier, Symantec also had a very well written edition of PGP for PalmOS and Windows Mobile, with encrypted volumes.

Symantec has a very kick-ass opportunity right now. They can capitalize on the general concern of both businesses and people and sell not just PGP Desktop, but a complete infrastructure going past BitLocker where a cryptographic token would be required for the OS to load. Not just a file on a USB flash drive, but a token where the key is well protected even from physical attack.

It blows my mind that they have the encryption market cornered with a solution that starts on boot, handles Samba shares, can handle files as disks similar to TrueCrypt, can function as a ZIP archiving utility, and can encrypt individual files with ease. However, they either let things sit, or price themselves out of the market.

Another example is the PGP server. This functionality is very useful for a company. It allows key recovery and ADKs, without going down the black hole of key escrow.

Symantec just has so much potential with the companies they own. Things like Ghost and Veritas's LVM replacement come to mind.

Even with compilers, they also have had things like a very solid C++ compiler for DOS and Windows 3.1 which shipped with more than 2 and a half feet of printed manuals, with every single function all described in good detail. I've not seen something that well documented outside of some IBM Redbooks.

I completely agree with the parent -- Symantec needs to "unfuck" some of their offerings and go for the target markets at a non-enterprise price. At the minimum, spin PGP out as a separate corporation and sell not just to the enterprise, but the average person. I'm sure with all the historic lineage of PGP combined with word of mouth, people would pay something like $19.95 to $29.95 for it without a second thought.

Yes, TrueCrypt can do similar, but having another commercially supported and updated encryption program that has its own independant signing system is very useful and flexible.

It wouldn't hurt to revamp Norton as well. Chasing virus/malware signatures is all but pointless. Instead, blocking by IP similar to Malwarebytes or perhaps even offering sandbox functionality for Web browsers would do far more than just having Norton be another "virus condom" utility.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46541325)

Even with compilers, they also have had things like a very solid C++ compiler for DOS and Windows 3.1 which shipped with more than 2 and a half feet of printed manuals, with every single function all described in good detail. I've not seen something that well documented outside of some IBM Redbooks.

A bet the compiler was _non-free_, and that you don't use it anymore. You should only use free software compilers like the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) along with its free documentation.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (1)

Enigma2175 (179646) | about 4 months ago | (#46544143)

Symantec has a very kick-ass opportunity right now. They can capitalize on the general concern of both businesses and people and sell not just PGP Desktop, but a complete infrastructure going past BitLocker where a cryptographic token would be required for the OS to load. Not just a file on a USB flash drive, but a token where the key is well protected even from physical attack.

Huh? PGP Desktop has long supported using a token or smart card to authenticate to an encrypted disk at boot. Yes, it supports the "file on a flash drive" approach as well but also supports cryptographic tokens from a lot of different manufacturers.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 4 months ago | (#46544351)

I should have stated differently.

What I meant to state is that is a very good thing that PGP supports more than just a file on a USB flash drive. Having something like a smart card + reader, eToken or a similar USB based device is a lot better than a file on media, just because an attacker can't just copy the contents off, which is a possibility if the USB flash drive was left plugged into the machine.

One of my laptops still uses an Aladdin eToken (before they were bought out by Safenet) as a means of booting. That way, I know that if I have the token on my physical keyring, the laptop isn't going to be decrypted anytime soon... and if someone does get the token and types the PIN wrong more than three times, the token will physically lock... blocking brute force attempts completely.

PS: Thanks for the release notes on your other note. I hit the Symantec site, and they were behind on what was supported. I definitely stand corrected there.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (2)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 4 months ago | (#46540223)

Unfortunately, Symantec seems to have a bit of the reverse Midas touch going on: they aquire a formerly promising company, it turns to shit, much less any attempts at internal development.

Imagine a merger of Symantec and CA. (shudder)

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#46540979)

Unfortunately, Symantec seems to have a bit of the reverse Midas touch going on: they aquire a formerly promising company, it turns to shit, much less any attempts at internal development.

Imagine a merger of Symantec and CA. (shudder)

Just think of it as being like hazmat cleanup: anything too dangerous to neutralize, you concentrate for easier sequestration...

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46540503)

Backup Exec is fiddly, undistinguished, and nontrivially expensive, and just isn't looking any better with age.

Not only is it not looking any better, it is looking much worse with age. Backup Exec 2012 is such a steaming pile of shit. Symantec has lost a lot of customers because of the drastic changes in UI and functionality. I still use Backup Exec 2010 on the few servers I can't virtualize, for everything else it's Veeam ftw.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (1)

lgw (121541) | about 4 months ago | (#46541007)

Back in the day, Backup Exec was by far the most intuitive and easiest backup product going. Of course, that was before Symantec. Funny how that works.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (1)

spacepimp (664856) | about 4 months ago | (#46539949)

Why not use truecrypt? Free and free. If their AV is any indication on how they develop and maintain PGP I won't go near it.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (2)

mlts (1038732) | about 4 months ago | (#46540057)

TrueCrypt is decent, but it can't hurt to have a utility that is updated and maintained with similar functionality. Truecrypt is going over two years without an update. It is a very good program, but PGP has a lot of functionality (public/private key exchange and upkeep, web of trust, etc.) that TC doesn't have.

Of course, one can use GNUpg and TrueCrypt. The command line works well, but GUI-wise, Symantec Encryption Desktop Professional (i.e. PGP Desktop) is just a lot easier to get around in.

One side note -- PGP Desktop isn't officially supported on Windows 8 and 8.1... but it does work.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (1)

pla (258480) | about 4 months ago | (#46541849)

Truecrypt is going over two years without an update.

Truecrypt doesn't try to serve every unrelated encryption need you might ever possibly have. It does securely encrypted disk-like things on a variety of underlying mediums, and nothing else. And in that regard, it hasn't needed an update in two years - I don't mean to sound like a zealot here, but honestly, Truecrypt comes just about as close to "perfect" software as I've ever seen.

And in that regard, Symantec (and Microsoft, and Gnome, and Apple, and Mozilla, and plenty of others as well) could take a lesson: Don't fuck with a good thing. Bugfixes? Great. Want to add optional features that don't break core functionality and see if your users like the? Great. But when you have an XP, just keep selling and supporting the damned thing, don't intentionally kill it off because of some delusion about merging phones and the desktop.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46542461)

Don't fuck with a good thing?

TrueCrypt doesn't work on Windows 8 or 8.1. Understandable that there are UEFI boot issues, but containers will give permission errors that can only be rectified by using a command line running. Can't use icacls to change permissions to fix it either.

So, all my TC volumes are attached to a Windows 7 box I RDP into.

TC needs some updates, and it isn't just to add worthless features. One can say the same thing about PGP Desktop as well... it doesn't support anything north of 7 either.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (1)

Enigma2175 (179646) | about 4 months ago | (#46544207)

TrueCrypt is decent, but it can't hurt to have a utility that is updated and maintained with similar functionality. Truecrypt is going over two years without an update. It is a very good program, but PGP has a lot of functionality (public/private key exchange and upkeep, web of trust, etc.) that TC doesn't have.

Of course, one can use GNUpg and TrueCrypt. The command line works well, but GUI-wise, Symantec Encryption Desktop Professional (i.e. PGP Desktop) is just a lot easier to get around in.

One side note -- PGP Desktop isn't officially supported on Windows 8 and 8.1... but it does work.

Recent releases of PGP Desktop do support Windows 8/8.1: Symantec Encryption Desktop 10.3.2 compatibility with Microsoft Windows 8/8.1 [symantec.com]

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46540173)

i don't know. we went to kaperskly from symantec AV and it's the worst AV i've ever seen. Symantec was amazing compared to the crap that kapersky is.

locks up my computer every time it has to update the database

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46540441)

A lot of people hate Kaspersky because it tries to be proactive, but without telling the user. If you set it up right, it's probably the best AV of the horrid batch that there are. Set up wrong, it is utter crap.

The difference between right and wrong is often a check box in some random place in the configs. There seem to be about 30 different UIs for Kaspersky.

LAMO: Captcha is irritant

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46540289)

Symantec is a lot like EA in that respect. They acquire companies that have a spiffy product, then milk it 'til nobody can stomach it anymore.

But be honest, what was the last GOOD thing that came out of Symantec that wasn't a direct or indirect acquisition rather than an internal development?

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (1)

TClevenger (252206) | about 4 months ago | (#46540953)

Symantec: where software goes to die.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (1)

Trongy (64652) | about 4 months ago | (#46541035)

They can't use that, CA got there first.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 4 months ago | (#46541239)

Yuck...just yuck. Your own description shows why to never use their software, bits like "needing info stored on a backup to unlock the backup program to restore" shows the company is being run by accountants and not engineers.

For Antivirus? Buy Comodo, their enterprise software is pretty damned solid and reasonably priced, for hard drive backup and recovery go Paragon, again solid and reasonable. There is a REASON why Symantec has such a bad rep, its a badly run company. If you want to bet the farm or your data to a company with such dumbass designs? Better you than me friend..

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46541983)

Regarding Backup Exec for restores... ... just load the trial version. Restores work fine. No serial number needed.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (1)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 4 months ago | (#46539805)

Do they still sell stuff??

Jeez....I had just assumed the quality of their products would have killed off their business by now.

Wonders will never cease...

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46539869)

Obviously a former McAfee boss

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46540297)

No, to McAfee my boss said "Well, with McAfee... you better not say anything. Even their box art sucks."

Re: McAffee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46541567)

Well, even McAffee has nothing good [youtube.com] to say about McAffee.

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (1)

King_TJ (85913) | about 4 months ago | (#46539971)

Exactly! Everything Symantec puts its name on turns to garbage.... Company could rename itself "Reverse Midas Corp."

Re:There's only one way to make biz with Sym "smoo (1)

bchat (267083) | about 4 months ago | (#46542819)

I agree. Their malware products don't detect malware and they consume a large percentage of machine resources doing it. You have to buy Malware Bytes AntiMalware to get good malware detection.

Impossible job (4, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about 4 months ago | (#46539511)

Growing sales in a shrinking market is hard enough. Doing it with Symantec software is plain impossible. Not getting a share of mobile? The mobile platforms have whitelist app stores and app isolation that make their software both unnecessary and impossible to implement.

Re:Impossible job (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 4 months ago | (#46539551)

Free is beating them on the low end too. Corps are the only buyers who need enterprise integration and management.

But for Joe six pack he can download avast or security essentials for free. Does anyone besides moms and grandmas actually buy Norton?

Re:Impossible job (3, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | about 4 months ago | (#46539609)

Corps are the only buyers who need enterprise integration and management.

You mean corps and governments right? Well even the government agencies I've dealt with out in western canada are dumping symantic fully for just about anything else. Sadly though, I remember when Norton was the best AV product on the market, and I can remember when F-Prot kicked them out of it, then kicked them while they were down. Well that was almost 20 years ago now too, it's been on a screaming decline since then. The biggest killer of course is just how top-heavy and resource hungry their AV suite is compared to everything else on the market.

Re:Impossible job (3, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 4 months ago | (#46539685)

Norton supposedly is MUCH improved and was re-engineered from the ground up in 2011. It has a good detection rate and fast performance according to av-total and other AV certification firms which release test results to the public.

However, like IE its brand is tarnished. Better is nice but it is hard to re-earn trust. I heard realnetworks fixed their player and was advertised on slashdot 4 years ago and they said they were sorry. It died fast as everyone laughed and shook their heads.

Symantec from what I see is still resource heavy on firms I work with. Perhaps they had an old version based on the older slow 360. A re-image at any other company takes 10 minutes. 3 freaking hours instead all going to install Symantec!???

They are on icore5's too!

Re:Impossible job (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46539931)

It's not supposedly, it's true. In fact, it's been much better since 2009.

Re:Impossible job (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 4 months ago | (#46540025)

Symantec is the definition of bloatware -- no way I would touch them with a 10 foot pole. They are OK on OSX but on Windows -- a total clusterfuck.

Does anyone under 25 even know who Peter Norton is/was?

Re:Impossible job (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 4 months ago | (#46540181)

Does anyone under 25 even know who Peter Norton is/was?

That's like asking them if they know who Kevin Mitnick is.

Re:Impossible job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46540689)

I'm 22 and can answer that: a fat con-man. Or, at least, that's what all the historical accounts have lead me to believe. Maybe it's like music, where I'm just in the "wrong generation" and would have to have been there to understand.

Re: Impossible job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46541047)

Well he wasn't as fat at the time but, ya.

Re:Impossible job (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 4 months ago | (#46540513)

Peter Norton is a bitmap. On a box. Hasn't that always been what he is?

Yikes, I looked, and I still have nu.exe on my C: drive. Not in the Path any longer though.

Re:Impossible job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46540853)

Peter Norton is a bitmap. On a box.

AFAIK, Peter Norton hasn't been seen on a Symantec box in a long time. Part of the deal when he sold PNCI to Symantec was that he gets paid a royalty for every box that bears his likeness (I think it's one dollar per box). Symantec got tired of paying him, and dropped his image.

Re: Impossible job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46544955)

Symantec is the definition of bloatware -- no way I would touch them with a 10 foot pole. They are OK on OSX

Well, that's because the OSX version did nothing but display the Symantec logo. There is no malware for OSX so it doesn't actually have to do anything else.

Re:Impossible job (1)

TClevenger (252206) | about 4 months ago | (#46540961)

Norton supposedly is MUCH improved and was re-engineered from the ground up in 2011. It has a good detection rate and fast performance according to av-total and other AV certification firms which release test results to the public.

Yeah, awesome. Symantec Client Security can detect "ZBot-like network activity" on a workstation, but it can neither detect nor remove the actual ZBot infection. Garbage.

Re:Impossible job (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 months ago | (#46542455)

Sadly though, I remember when Norton was the best AV product on the market, and I can remember when F-Prot kicked them out of it, then kicked them while they were down

What? When was that? Norton was supplanted by Kaspersky AVP because they ruined all the parts wrapped around the engine, AVP then became unbearably slow and was replaced by Avast!, which then became a whore and ruined its interface at the same time and was replaced by Avira, which became a whore and ruined its interface just as Avast! fixed theirs, and was replaced by Avast! again. It's the effectiveness winner just now.

Re:Impossible job (2)

master5o1 (1068594) | about 4 months ago | (#46539581)

Same tactic as they normally do with AV software. Scare people into thinking they require an antivirus app for their phone, despite it probably not having the ability to do anything because of isolation, permission restrictions.

Re:Impossible job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46539709)

People who already have AV see no reason to upgrade or pay again.

The rest of joe six packs use free AV like AVG, Avast, or security essentials. Joe six pack too uses his phone more which again is a hit for marketshare.

Only in corporate accounting that solid revenue is a decline but it does not grow .

Re:Impossible job (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46539855)

Symantec software is a fricking pain in the ass.

For PCI, some security and compliance idiot decided that Symantec egress filtering software was a good idea. Because their software is tied to specific Linux versions, the security appliances that scan the entire network cannot work with updated kernels that fix some critical flaws.

Their endpoint Linux software is no better. It's tied to a critically flawed Java version. Can we update the JVM? Sure, but then we lose support for the broken product.

Their clustering software is no better. It's also tied to specific kernel versions so updates are locked. It's a cluster, right? That means we can update one node and then the other? Nope, their ridiculous cluster software means that both nodes have to be updated at the same time. What a fricking joke.

Re:Impossible job (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 4 months ago | (#46541307)

Like many companies in this era, I could save them. But I won't.

Re:Impossible job (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 4 months ago | (#46540897)

Not getting a share of mobile? The mobile platforms have whitelist app stores and app isolation that make their software both unnecessary and impossible to implement.

It just means they're going at the wrong level - don't sell an app, sell a service that comes with the phone. Most of those Android phones sold out there to clueless users. The thing to do is get their software preloaded in the OS image so it's not removable and then get the carriers to sell it as security software and all that to protect them.

When you're built into the image, you don't have to rely on OS isolation - your software has the run of the place. And with the low end Androids selling so well (you don't put it on the high end ones because those purchasers tend to know what they want), that's a big market.

Altiris? (2)

RITjobbie (211397) | about 4 months ago | (#46539577)

I wish this even partially made up for the horrible way they handled the Altiris acquisition.

Re:Altiris? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#46539887)

You also were...less than totally impressed... by Altiris 7?

I think that our internal review of that piece of work is the only time my jaw has ever literally dropped when dealing with a vendor. I've never seen an acquisition squandered that hard, ever, much less subsequently offered as an 'upgrade' with a straight face.

I can only assume that the blowback must have been pretty severe; because they certainly didn't want to release 6.9SP5 (and oh fuck does it show; but still better than 7).

On the plus side, they eliminated the downright immoral practice of being able to 'easily contact the developers of the software you purchased if you need support' in favor of Symantec's Labyrinthine Phone Tree of Utter Suffering, which encourages self-sufficiency by making the alternative far, far, worse.

Re:Altiris? (2)

cusco (717999) | about 4 months ago | (#46540803)

What they did to DriveImage was even worse, took the best imaging product on the market, ripped its guts out, slapped the much-inferior Ghost interface on it, and removed the ability to copy an image over the network without purchasing a Pro or Premium or something license. It went from fitting on a single floppy to needing a CD, in the days when not all BIOSes would boot off a CD. I still have a DriveImage disk around somewhere, because I refused to used that clusterfuck even when my boss paid for a license.

Shortly after Symantec purchased and then destroyed WinFax I had to call their support. Their 'Music On Hold' player had died that morning, and someone had run out to their car, grabbed their Walkman and plugged it into the phone system in its place. The CD in the player? Bill Cosby's 'Wonderfulness' album. Forty five minutes later, when they finally answered the phone I was in a pretty good mood. Of course then they told me that WinFax blue screening NT machines daily was a "known issue" which they had no intention of fixing and ruined the mood.

Re:Altiris? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46543681)

I remember when the brought in Indian programmers and had the Utah programmers train their replacements....

Everyone should use Symantec products (4, Funny)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about 4 months ago | (#46539695)

Any viruses you get will be limited in how much damage they can do because of how slow Symantec will make your computer.

Computer viruses and anti-virus applications are in a game of cat and mouse. Only the best virus writers can make viruses that are resource efficient enough to run on a machine with Symantec products.

I wouldn't want to be some malware trying to compete with Norton anti-virus for CPU time. It's no contest. Symantec will easily take 90-95% of the total CPU capacity, leaving you only a few cycles with which to steal credit card numbers, mine bitcoins, or try spread yourself to other hosts. You will be so marginalized that no one will even no you're there, like an unpopular girl hiding in a dark corner at a high school dance.

Re:Everyone should use Symantec products (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 4 months ago | (#46539739)

Viruses are very resource efficient now. IN the past they used XP's device driver development kit to install themselves as hardware for kernel integration. This slowed the kernel down.

Windows 7 got rid of this.

Today they are very light so users do not know they are infected. Many who say proudly they do not need AV because they are sooo smart and do not click shit have 4 or 5 infections when I go onto their systems. Then they tell me how firefox would NEVER let that happen. LOL

An icore7 has 80 billion instructions per second! Modern machines are supercomputers of years yore. A xeon 10 core goes over 100 billion instructions per second. It is not hard to write code that can read keystrokes and watch processes to hide itself or attach itself to other things.

Re:Everyone should use Symantec products (1)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about 4 months ago | (#46539847)

Is your sarcasm detector nonfunctional?

Re:Everyone should use Symantec products (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46539879)

Firefox with NoScript and Adblock will make even a Windows machine remarkably hard to infect. Don't believe the antivirus propaganda; that's for dumb users that watch videos at sketchy sites and download all manner of filth.

Re:Everyone should use Symantec products (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 4 months ago | (#46540443)

Firefox with NoScript and Adblock will make even a Windows machine remarkably hard to infect. Don't believe the antivirus propaganda; that's for dumb users that watch videos at sketchy sites and download all manner of filth.

Use AV.

There are very smart hackers out there who can hide shit, privledge escalate, and even get into your linux boxen like no tomorrow and hide from rootkits.

There is a free AV and clamAV for linux. There was a freebsd tool I used chkrootkit that I used back in 2003. These malware can still hide of course on the linux box so EFI might be needed if you are a corp.

Point is I am not a paid spokes person. I repair computers for people who get infected. There is some serious evil shit out of Russia and eastern Europe today. The internet is a dangerous place and true you do not need symantec.

While adblock is nice which I used until youtube stopped working I always use AV. I have too many important things and too many bad guys out there. It is not propoganda at all as one successful hack of a millionaire is free money and with the FBI having no jurisdication in Russia these assholes will do whatever they can to steal your money with no threat of being caught.

Re:Everyone should use Symantec products (1)

Smauler (915644) | about 4 months ago | (#46541415)

There are very smart hackers out there who can hide shit, privledge escalate, and even get into your linux boxen like no tomorrow and hide from rootkits.

Very smart hackers will not be deterred for a minute by generic consumer antivirus.

I've not run AV since about 2000 or so... had a couple of infections, nothing serious, easily cleaned. If I'm worried, I'll boot off a CD to check the filesystem... very few things can get around that. I constantly have to clean some of my extended family's systems, despite them running up to date AV. Antivirus does not help most of the time, that's the point.

I'll repeat : Antivirus does not stop you getting infected. Saying that you should use antivirus because otherwise you might get infected is like saying you should wear a purple hat because otherwise a tiger might eat you. They're not related.

Re:Everyone should use Symantec products (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 4 months ago | (#46541987)

That's a little disingenuous. Running AV will help prevent infection as long as it makes use of on-access scanning and heuristics against zero-day attacks. Passive / Offline scanning is no good for prevention, but active prevention is, and all modern (Windows) antivirus software features on-access scanning, as well as on-mount removable media scanning and automatic scanning of downloads.

A better analogy is like saying getting the MMR vaccine won't help you when you already have rubella, but it might stop you getting it in the future.

I got an idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46540187)

Perhaps someone should write a virus that specifically targets PCs with Norton installed. And all the virus does is: Disables all Norton software and pops up a message to the user saying:
"I am a virus that has done you a favour, I have disabled your Norton software for you. This has benefited you in 3 ways: Firstly you now know how ineffective Norton software is at protecting you (If it can't even protect its self how can it protect you?). Secondly your PC will now be running faster as I've given you some of your CPU and Memory resources back. And thirdly, you now have the opportunity to install a security software package that will actually protect you".

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46539759)

Lay off some job, Bennett.

YOU FAIL It! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46539789)

to the crowd 1n

Sounds like he was on the right track (3, Informative)

un4given (114183) | about 4 months ago | (#46539815)

Disclaimer: I am an IT consultant and I work with multiple vendors' products, including Symantec. The biggest problem that we have with Symantec is support. It's horrible. It's so bad that Symantec has a program for it's partner resellers called TAPP. It requires certifications and training to get into, and only gives you access to more competent tech support than the general public gets. The fact that they even need such a program is telling.

Re:Sounds like he was on the right track (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#46539937)

You do really have to wonder about the fact that an antivirus company(which would theoretically know something about using 'signatures' to detect things), has a difficult time using the theoretically-unique serial number of your product to route you to the correct unhelpful script-reader...

Re:Sounds like he was on the right track (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46540123)

Indeed. Customers do not generally and in the case of security products specifically appreciate erratically branching company which is also difficult to do business with. Going opposite is always a good thing.

Re:Sounds like he was on the right track (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46540955)

But that's the point of the training. HARD SELL.

My dad bought a Galaxy tablet, I declined the salesman attempt to sell him Anti Virus, the seller was really aggressive, demanding to know what alternate anti-virus I had in mind, and if I thought my dad wasn't worth protecting.

I would have walked out, but my dad was there, so I had to enforce the line, and keep my dad backing my choice, as this salesman questioned my expertise on the matter.

Without the training they don't do the HARD SELL and nobody would buy that stinking useless POS they try to sell as Android antivirus.

last time i checked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46539939)

they were this horrible indian-hire-indian only culture. hope they'll learn and change.

oh, noes! CEOlocker strikes! (1)

swschrad (312009) | about 4 months ago | (#46540051)

and they couldn't get rid of it..

Pointless Company (1)

GrahamCox (741991) | about 4 months ago | (#46540103)

They've been pointless since they acquired THNK technologies and ruined their products. When was that, 1992?

symantec products (1)

beefoot (2250164) | about 4 months ago | (#46540125)

The good thing about symantec is I can't think of any good products they offer.

Big Deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46540151)

When you're a company that focuses on developing PC security software, you better make damn sure you build and maintain a reputation of keeping malicious software out. Symantec have gotten way too comfortable relying on their brand names to carry them, charging premium prices but not producing a premium product. They lost the respect and support of real techs years ago, if it wasn't for clever sales people selling Norton to anyone who trusts them to know what is best, they would have been history long before now.

A Barking Dog with Fleas (1)

evanism (600676) | about 4 months ago | (#46540161)

Like Yahoo this company no longer has any purpose other than its own continuity.

The sooner it dies, on fire in a hole, the better.

Its really sad seeing how desperately they re-image the company every few years. Its like a sad out of shape actor that had a glimpse of fame 20 years ago...still trying to prise money from the ever stiffening corpse of rejection.

from the inside.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46540497)

They sure do have the reverse midas touch, having been on the inside coming from the Symantec aquisition of Altiris I can tell you why.

They aquire a company, then have no idea what they are going to do with it. Eventually they sack all the developers and anyone else with a vision for the product, put the product into maintence mode and offshore the developement of it to India. All the while telling the customers that the product has a future. I have seen it with Ghost, PC tools and Altiris....

They have great marketing tho...

No, nothing to do with NSA involvement public (1)

MonsterMasher (518641) | about 4 months ago | (#46540745)

I'm looking forward to learning more about which companies did what when approached by the NSA about including (damaging) their own products that customers purchased from them in good faith..
Just speculation on keyboard.

Re:No, nothing to do with NSA involvement public (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#46540991)

Do you think Symantec is capable of building antivirus software that the NSA would need to have weakened for them?

Corporations are People too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46540973)

Symantec is such a bad ass, you see he fired this cocksucker CEO Steve Bennett.

FFS.

"Symantec Board Fires CEO Steve Bennett".

I am so tired of this shit.

Re:Corporations are People too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46542587)

Y yu mad bro?

The next CEO... (1)

Biff Stu (654099) | about 4 months ago | (#46541127)

I think they should go back to their consumer PC security & utility roots and hire John McAfee.

Here we are in 2014... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46541199)

...and BackupExec will still not install on Windows 2012 (and only supported backing it up mid-last year). It's not just AV holding them back.

Re:Here we are in 2014... (1)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | about 4 months ago | (#46542503)

...and BackupExec will still not install on Windows 2012

The beta for 2014 is out, and it fully support 2012 and 2012 R2 server.
It is available to all who registered for the beta, and is supported in production.
Late, but at least it is here now.

faisslam (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46541925)

I wish this even partially made up for the horrible [ifhamkayf.com] way they handled the Altiris acquisition.

Symantec Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46542339)

Let us not forget this is the same company that takes over a YEAR to support a new OS release. How long has Windows 2012 been out and you still can not install BackupExec on it. Yes you can back it up but you loose allot of features, and they still do not support Windows 2012 R2 at all outside of a limited beta. Symantec is just a company circling the drain with a lack of any future vision.

This is now the 3rd or 4th CEO they have terminated in the last few years and there product support suffers more and more each time with there incompetence.

Re:Symantec Support (1)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | about 4 months ago | (#46542489)

and they still do not support Windows 2012 R2 at all outside of a limited beta.

Calling the beta "limited" is pretty unfair. They announced the beta in November last year, and invited people to register for it. Everybody who registered by the end of February were admitted. If you followed any of their news channels (website, twitter...) you could not avoid knowing about it.
In addition they provide support for the beta release in production.

Re:Symantec Support (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 4 months ago | (#46542607)

loose allot

Ouch, my eyes!

Symantec and some of those products (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46543067)

So Symantec bought two encryption company's, SEE and the PGP, what do they do with it? run for some time, telling they costumers, yea we will integrate both of our encryption product down the road. What do they do after two years? They kill the SEE and tell they consumers, you switch to PGP or find some other product. How about the SSIM, that's another good joke that was just recently killed. Symantec just suck.

Wouldn't be hard (1)

NuAngel (732572) | about 4 months ago | (#46543601)

I could run Symantec better than it's been run the last decade... or two.

You know why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46544079)

As a former 4 year management employee under this man he was shrewd and cut off people to the quick in small and large settings. You were gone. Mean bastard. Sorry but no leader needs to act that way. And get millions in comp. Hope the parachute doesn't get tangled.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>