BUGFIX: Norton Internet Security and-or Norton SystemWorks loses Activation after install of Septemb

Discussion in 'Windows Update' started by Bill Drake, Sep 27, 2006.

  1. Bill Drake

    Bill Drake Guest

    OK, I have been battling this one for several weeks now - I've
    finally gotten to the bottom of the problem.

    I have a Client running Windows 2000-SP4. He runs both Norton
    Internet Security 2005 and Norton SystemWorks 2005 Premier
    (which has Ghost 2005 bundled with it). This installation is about
    6 months old and ran fine up until recently.

    Starting just after September's Patch Tuesday - his machine would
    spontaneously lose its Activation for Norton Internet Security 2005.
    Attempting to Re-Activate would fail - requesting that the user contact
    Symantec Customer Support.

    Restoring the Client's Ghost Image from the day before Patch Tuesday,
    then completely updating Norton Internet Security and SystemWorks
    and then reinstalling the Microsoft Patches would solve the problem for
    24 hours. However - regardless of the successful repair of the problem
    by the use of Ghost - Norton Internet Security Activation would be lost
    the next time Symantec Live Update brought down and installed new
    Virus Definitions on the Client's machine.


    Symantec Customer Support recommended a complete uninstall and
    reinstall of both Norton Internet Security and Norton SystemWorks
    Premier as a possible solution to the problem. After doing as requested,
    I found this did not work - as the problem recurred exactly as it had with
    the use of Ghost as detailed above.

    Symantec Customer Support then tried to tell me this problem was
    related to the installation of Roxio EZ-CD Creator software. They
    told me this problem occurred with all versions and that the only
    solution was to remove EZ-CD Creator, install the Norton Software
    and then reinstall EZ-CD Creator.

    At this point I ran out of patience. I re-explained (for the 8th time)
    that this installation HAD RUN SUCCESSFULLY FOR 6 MONTHS
    and had spontaneously deactivated. I insisted that they check the
    Activation database count for this Client's Product Keys for both
    Norton Internet Security and Norton SystemWorks. The products
    (which had only been installed on this Client's System) showed
    multiple installations. I insisted that the Activation database counts
    be reset. Product Support accepted my request and the fresh reinstall
    of the product - done at Symantec's request - which up to that point
    had stubbornly refused to Activate - magically activated.


    Now *here* is where it gets interesting:

    After successfully Activating the product, the usual round of Live
    Updates is required to bring the product up-to-date. However,
    unlike installations done previous to the install of Microsoft's
    September updates - this *new* install promptly failed its
    activation immediately after the install of the *next* set of
    Symantec Updates.

    It was necessary to re-activate the product a *second* time,
    immediately after the second round of Symantec Live Update
    installation procedures. Because the Activation database
    count had been reset - this time the *second* activation was
    successful and the update installed correctly.

    From the above, I suspect that something in the September
    Microsoft Updates interacts with the information Symantec's
    Live-Update uses for Symantec's own Product Activation Key
    reporting.

    This data shows up *differently* between the Product
    Activation that occurs when using the original CD-ROM
    and the information returned to Symantec after the first
    time Live-Update is used. Because of the interaction,
    the Symantec Server interprets the changed info as a
    *new installation* even though the product installation is
    an existing installation that has not changed at all. As
    a result, a *second* activation process is required.


    The crucial factor here is that if the user has had to
    reinstall the product for any *other* reason (such as
    a virus infection or any one of the other reasons that
    Symantec requests the user reinstall the product)
    then the install-count kept on the Symantec Server
    for that product key will exceed the number that
    Symantec considers abuse of the product - and the
    user will be branded a pirate. As a result, that
    *second* activation will be refused and the user is
    stuck in activation hell until they call Symantec and
    get the install-count reset on the Symantec Server
    so their update can proceed to completion correctly.


    So - from what I can make out - what *looks* like a
    Symantec problem is actually a changed response
    for Symantec's Product Activation routines that occurs
    as a consequence of a MICROSOFT update.

    Therefore, please be aware that as a result of the
    security updates released by Microsoft on Patch
    Tuesdays - your Product Activation on other
    software may be SPONTANEOUSLY REVOKED
    and you will have to contact that software
    manufacturer's technical support and have them
    manually clean up the mess before your previously
    working installations of non-microsoft products will
    work properly again.


    Needless to say, I am underwhelmed by the shoddy
    industry-cross-cooperation the above debacle implies.

    Once again, Microsoft's quality-control is shown to be
    sorely lacking or non-existent. This is unacceptable.


    Best I can do for now. <tm>


    Bill
     
    Bill Drake, Sep 27, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bill Drake

    Antioch Guest

    I cannot help thinking that the answer to the problem was in updates all the
    time.
    Download to disk/desktop/file to whatever preference - with or without any
    antivirus running and certainly not Norton.
    Disconnect from the net - disable all security progs and anything not
    required to run - then install updates.
    And dont cough - with the apparent instability of MS updates at the moment,
    anything could cause a failure at any point in the process.
    Rgds
    Antioch
    PS Thanks for the info - almost forgot.
     
    Antioch, Sep 27, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bill,

    Let me state this as clearly as possible. Although you've done a fine
    job deducing what the issue stems from, suggest you visit the Windows
    Update newsgroup and see how many Users have issues accessing Windows
    Updates and installing Critical updates due to the presence of Symantec
    software "products".
    NAV, NIS, and NSW are NOT fit to use with Windows OS'. Period.
    Check this study out :
    http://www.thepcspy.com/articles/other/what_really_slows_windows_down

    Especially this comparative: Results and Conclusions
    http://www.thepcspy.com/articles/other/what_really_slows_windows_down/5

    The above is for performance issues. The following is on how well AV's
    perform :
    Comparative tests of antivirus programs
    http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=82&mnu=82

    I've participated in the WU NG for over 5 years. There is NO other AV or
    security suite that causes more issues with OS' than the ones from Symantec.

    So, the ball is not in Microsoft's court, rather, it's up to Symantec to
    be able to produce software that functions with Windows.
    And, they do NOT.

    None of my systems have ever had Norton anything installed on them.
    If my clients' systems had any Symantec "software" installed, I've
    uninstalled them, and replaced "it" with either free or paid for AV's.

    None of them have had any performance, updating, nor malware issues due
    to the installed AV.

    So, if the fault lies with MS, then why do the above systems not
    experience Activation, performance, updating, or malware issues ?

    MowGreen [MVP 2003-2006]
    ===============
    *-343-* FDNY
    Never Forgotten
    ===============

    p.s. I have beta tested for Symantec, therefore I can not discuss
    anything concerning their bringing a product to market. Suffice it to
    say, their method is *not* working. They depend on OEM's to foist said
    "software" onto unsuspecting Users' systems.
     
    MowGreen [MVP], Sep 27, 2006
    #3
  4. Bill Drake

    Bill Drake Guest

    Mow, I am not going to argue with you about the suitability
    of Symantec products or not. The issue is moot. There are
    *tons* of people out there running Symantec product - whether
    you like it or not. This post is relevant to THEM.

    It is Microsoft's responsibility to regression-test their patches
    such that the patches do NOT produce errors in already
    existing products. This is not debatable.

    As you have mentioned, I presented evidence of an interaction
    caused solely by the presence of one or more of the updates
    released in the September set of Microsoft Updates - which
    INDUCES the problem discussed in my report. This is obviously
    a regression issue and needs to be addressed as such.


    Furthermore, I understand you have an opinion about Symantec
    Products. I have seen your posting history on the subject and
    it is not pretty. It comes across as if you have an axe to grind.

    Please note that I have an opinion about irrational, bigoted and
    brainless hatred of *any* product - whether from Microsoft,
    Apple, Symantec or whoever. I am not interested in discussions
    of those types.

    What I DO want is results, a consistent dedication to workability,
    and a reliable program suite that works as designed. I don't care
    who produces that. However, I do object most strongly when a
    third-party product that is working as designed magically STOPS
    working as designed due to OS manufacturer monkeydiddling.

    And I have said so.


    EOT


    Bill



     
    Bill Drake, Sep 28, 2006
    #4
  5. Bill Drake

    FeMaster Guest

    As a side note, I am Running Norton Internet Security 2005 Antispyware
    Edition, and SystemWorks 2005 Premier on my system. Only difference is I am
    running Windows XP SP1. I have had no issues with the September updates,
    nor any other updates, so far. It may just be an isolated incident with
    this person's system. Of course, it could just be Windows 2000 as well.
     
    FeMaster, Sep 28, 2006
    #5
  6. Bill Drake

    MowGreen Guest

    EOT

    Fair enough. One point, though. It may come across as a biased flame
    against Symantec because of all the difficulties I've witnessed Users
    having to go through due to it's lack of functionality with Windows.
    So be it.

    If the issue lies with Windows, then why do other AV's rarely have
    issues with Windows ?

    EOT

    MowGreen [MVP 2003-2006]
    ===============
    *-343-* FDNY
    Never Forgotten
    ===============



     
    MowGreen, Sep 28, 2006
    #6
  7. Bill Drake

    DL Guest

    My two pence worth;
    I gave up on NIS 2005 about a year ago, having used Norton products for some
    years without any real problems.
    On two PC's NIS would constantly deactivate, this didn't coincide with any
    MS update and was completely random. - I had a volume licence for NIS, but
    didnt install it on the other PC's
    Norton support, over some period, could'nt help other than suggesting
    uninstall/completely remove/clean reinstall - I got fed up running this
    procedure - and I wasnt about to format / clean install as they suggested

     
    DL, Sep 28, 2006
    #7
  8. Surely that's only true for their products? Why should MS be expected
    to ensure their patches don't affect other people's products?
     
    Jeremy C B Nicoll, Sep 28, 2006
    #8
  9. Bill Drake

    Rock Guest

    Bill, this is a problem with a machine running windows 2000. Why are you
    posting this to an XP newsgroup? As a side note we see more problems in XP
    from systems running Symantec / Norton products. Users are better off
    without it.
     
    Rock, Sep 28, 2006
    #9
  10. Bill Drake

    antioch Guest

    Re the above I am prompted to ask if you would get the same KB numbered
    updates on your XP SP1 as I get with XP SP2?
    Rgds
    Antioch
     
    antioch, Sep 28, 2006
    #10
  11. On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:22:06 -0700, "Bill Drake"
    In the past, I was fairly agnostic about Norton AV; I just considered
    it a waste of money if you were eligible to use a free av that the
    retail sales driod wouldn't have told you about, and I thought it was
    too big, bloated and invasive for taste.

    But I now have a stronger dislike for the product, and for exactly the
    same reason I have a dislike for malware - and which would be the
    reason for buying an av in the first place.

    Namely, I don't like software that pursues an agenda hostile to my
    interests, and that attempts to hide this fact.

    See: http://cquirke.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-i-avoid-norton-av.html

    This problem arises because Norton is deliberately playing
    silly-buggers behind your back, fussing about whether it's properly
    licensed or not. Norton's deep integration can be brittle at the best
    of times, but when this subsystem breaks, it amounts to a DoS attack.

    It's particularly a problem in the context of an AV, because often you
    will have to go hand-to-hand with undetected malware using manual
    tools such as HiJackThis, or manually clearing out hi-risk locations
    such as Temp, TIF, etc. But because Norton is itself running some
    sort of covert system, every time you find unfamiliar files hiding
    about, you have to ask; is this part of the malware, or part of
    Norton's hidden DoS payload? If I clear these files, am I cleaning
    the system, or disabling one of its defenses?

    Normally, if your paid-for product doesn't work, you can trust their
    tech support to be on your side in trying to help you get it to work
    again. But can you trust Norton's tech support for straight answers,
    when it comes to code they've added to the product that is there to
    act against you, and to be kept hidden from you?

    Is this the sort of vendor you want to pay and support?


    Drugs are usually safe. Inject? (Y/n)
     
    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user), Sep 29, 2006
    #11
  12. Bill Drake

    Admiral Q Guest



    I'd suggest posting in one of the many Win2k newsgroups. They are more
    likely to have a solution for a Win2k problem than all the XP newsgroups you
    cross-posted to.
     
    Admiral Q, Sep 29, 2006
    #12
  13. Bill Drake

    antioch Guest

    Very interesting - I think I read earlier this year that their products were
    found to contain those 'rootkits' - a bit like the Sony incident and MS for
    that matter.
    Antioch
     
    antioch, Sep 29, 2006
    #13
  14.  
    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user), Sep 29, 2006
    #14
  15. Bill Drake

    FeMaster Guest

    From what I understand, most are common to both Service Packs, but there are
    a few that are specific to each one...
     
    FeMaster, Sep 29, 2006
    #15
  16.  
    Jeremy C B Nicoll, Sep 29, 2006
    #16
  17. [/QUOTE]

    Consider also the monopoly/trust issues implied by "fixing the OS so
    that MS apps work, but not testing for other vendor's apps".
    Because their product is an OS, that has to work with apps.

    Normally, that's easy; the OS is the given state that apps are written
    for and tested against. The problems arise when MS pushes changes
    into the OS, to fix earlier product defects.

    How can an app vendor test their app for OS code that does not yet
    exist? That's why if MS pushes changes, they have to test those
    changes on all apps. We'd much rather thay didn't push changes at
    all, i.e. that they wrote defect-free code in the first place.
    Yep. That's the reason why app vendors are encouraged to use the
    approved APIs, and not make use of "undocumented" Windows features.
    The controversy there has been that in the past, MS resorted to such
    "undocumented" features to get MS Office running more efficiently.
    Not really, no. More like a container ship is built to carry goods
    containers... the OS exists purely to act as a platform for apps
    written for it, whereas a car is not built purely as a platform for
    add-on engine components.
    Now we're getting somewhere ;-)
    I agree with you, up to a point - the problem is that what Norton AV
    tries to do, requires it to go deeper than the malware it is trying to
    fix. That means intruding into unexpected spaces, just as malware is
    likely to do. What is unacceptable is that Norton includes their own
    hidden malware designed to hide from the user, and when this is the
    cause of the problem, then it's a problem the user need not have had.

    The original Peter Norton team were brilliant in the DOS era, because
    they leveraged a deep knowledge of the system to create new types of
    utilities that never existed before.

    That changed when Windows came along, because Windows changed the
    relationship between OS and application.

    In the DOS era, the OS merely launched an app, got out of the way, and
    stayed out of the way unless the app called it to perform a service.

    In the Windows era, the OS was to remain in full control of the system
    at all times, and would call into the various running programs as and
    when it saw fit. Almost everything the program wanted to do on
    screen, it was expected to do by asking Windows to do it.

    The initial 16-bit Windows used co-operative multi-tasking, where apps
    were supposed to "let go" so that Windows could regain control and
    allow other apps to run for a while. This was the same multitasking
    model used by MacOS until comparitively recently.

    All too often "co-operative" multitasking really meant competitive
    multitasking, because if you give app programmers a choice between
    letting other apps run faster at the expense of the speed of their own
    app, or hogging the processor so their app looks fast but everything
    else is slow, guess what they'd do?

    So 32-bit Windows (NT and native Win9x apps) used pre-emptive
    multitasking, where the OS would step in and yank control away from
    the app, whether it wanted to "let go" or not.

    Norton didn't adapt to this - they still tried to do everything the
    old way, duplicating most of the OS functionality rather than using it
    as the new app philosophy would have expected. So we had large and
    cumbersome Norton Desktop for Win3.yuk, and the large and cumbersome
    Norton Utilities for the original Win95.

    While Win95 was being developed, Norton had an inside track; the beta
    of 95 and Norton-for-95 ran in synch, with the goal that on release,
    there would be a dedicated Norton Utilities ready for it - and that's
    what happened. Win98 came and went, and I guess Norton did what most
    vendors would do; pore over the resource kit to get it right.

    Then WinME came out with no resource kit and much chest-thumping from
    MS about how Win9x was a dead end and that devs should switch to NT
    instead. So those apps that worked deep within the system expecting
    this to be unchanged from Win98, were in for a shock; they clashed
    with new-fangled deep subsystems such as SR and SFP.

    By now, "Norton" is just a brand name for Symantec. It's an odd
    choice of name for an av, given that Peter Norton was one of the last
    to acknowledge the existances of viruses when they first came out.


    Drugs are usually safe. Inject? (Y/n)
     
    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user), Sep 30, 2006
    #17
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.