Symantec Adds Product Activation 401
maliabu writes "GlobeTechnology/CNET reports that Symantec has added an antipiracy technology to the new version of its main virus-zapping program, in the form of compulsory product activation. It is intended to protect consumers from widespread counterfeit copies of Symantec programs. The company estimates at least 3.6 million bogus copies of its programs are sold annually, causing headaches both for Symantec and unsuspecting buyers, who find out too late that the software isn't doing the job."
lie (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe it as a main cause.
Re:lie (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:lie (Score:2)
Re:lie (Score:2, Funny)
Re:lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple 'solutions' - like checking for another copy of the software on the network running with the same serial number - are far better...
It targets the people that really should be paying for more licenses, and doesn't generally affect a 'legit' user in *any* way...
Making it harder to use 'legit' software only drives more people to look for alternatives...
Re:lie (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the end user STILL doesn't know that his software is not effective.
I don't see why a simple online activation system makes things "harder." It's certainly not harder than downloading and installing hacked software. So the only reason people who want protection from virus would actively seek
Re:lie (Score:3, Informative)
Just because you - or others you personally know - hasn't had any issues with it, doesn't mean it isn't a major headache for others.
Activation on 'third party' software has more potential issues that th
Re:What about OEM and Corporate versions. (Score:3, Informative)
Home i.e. NON CORPORATE products will require activation.
Re:What about OEM and Corporate versions. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about OEM and Corporate versions. (Score:3, Insightful)
1) This is quite similar to WinXP as it is a harbinger of "leased" software; When I buy or suggest that others buy software, it is under the assumption that they are getting a product which will then be the property of the purchaser; If it doesn't allow you to move it from machine to machine as upgrade cycles or repairs require, you are not the owner of the product.
2) Some activities don't use corporate licenses, and aren't connected to the Internet, and never will b
I wonder........ (Score:2)
(I'm guessing NO!)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
How? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Symantec's product relies on regular updates of virus definitions from Symantec. I assume - tho' I have not checked - that Symantec requires some form of authentication for this, after all, they sell subscriptions and that's what pays for the database to be kept up to date. Counterfeit copies of the product will be unable to access these updates, lulling users into a false sense of security. Everyone loses - Symantec lose because they don't get the money, the user loses because they paid for a counterfeit. The only one who benefits is the pirate.
Re:How? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How? (Missed the point) (Score:5, Insightful)
By contrast, product activation seeks to ensure that users register their copy with the manufacturer, and that only one copy is in use at any time. This (sort of) effectively prevents selling duplicates of a CD, and (if properly managed) prevents selling duplicates of a registration number too.
Re:How? (Missed the point) (Score:3, Insightful)
>>are bit-for-bit identical to the original.
>If that's the case, then those users wouldn't be having problems.
Well, I'd like to see some statistics here about "problems". If you read the GlobeTechnology article, it has exactly two quotes about this:
1) "The company estimates at least 3.6-million bogus copies of its programs are sold annually, causing headaches both for Symantec and unsuspecting buyers, who find out too late that th
Re:How? (Score:2, Informative)
Users who aren't currently bothered about the origins of their Symantec software lose out; users who thought they had bought Symantec-blessed copies will be notified at install time, not 12 months down the road when they can't get updates, and get accused of piracy if they complain.
That's the standard (Score:5, Interesting)
So the real question is - if there are 3.6M bogus copies sold, and (by RIAA numbers) an additional 360M pirated freely online, by enforcing the product activation, will the Internet see more viruses or less? (and yes, I know it's technically virii)
My vote is on more...
Re:That's the standard (Score:5, Informative)
The plural of virus is neither viri nor virii, nor even vira nor virora. It is quite simply viruses, irrespective of context. Here's why. [perl.com]
Re:That's the standard (Score:2)
I think that's the geekiest thing I've ever read that didn't involve electricity.
Need antivirus? (Score:4, Informative)
Symantec antivirus for home use is bloated as hell and has required yearly "subscriptions" for some time now. When that nonsense started, I bailed. Antivirus software should at the very least offer free updates to the virus definition files, given the havoc that these things have been causing of late.
Re:Need antivirus? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think in the long run, the big boys are going to lose out to the little guys that offer free products or products with a very reasonable cost.
Ofcourse big business' needs the write off, time will tell but atleast we have options.
Re:Need antivirus? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.f-secure.com/download-purchase/updat e s. shtml
While I won't go as far as saying Symantec *should* give away free updates, but i'm saying these other people do. Symantec after all pretty much gives away their product with the
Re:Need antivirus? (Score:2, Interesting)
Now sure, you can right click on the file and test it for viruses before launching it (surely, everyone does it, right? or compile from source just to make sure or you know the other options...).
Anyway, just wanted to ask if anyone else had noticed that. I'm sure that on 98, the so
Yes, exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
This move by Symantec is an attempt to bolster revenue, and it will fail. They should (a) improve the quality of their product and (b) provide a free version for home users. If they do not do both of these, they will simply drop into obscurity, and this copy-protection move will speed-up their demise.
Re:Yes, exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
From what I've read, Symantec's activation will be fairly liberal -- not kicking in until an activation code has been used on at least
Re:Need antivirus? (Score:2)
Not effective anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
If I had shares in Symantec I'd be selling them now.
Re:Not effective anyway (Score:2)
i smell shill here.
I hope the rest of the readers here will see through this desperate cry for publicity.
So what!?!?
You sound like a shill trying to protect Symantec's business interests.
If AVG does a better job than Symantec, I'll use it and let my NAV subscription run out. It's certainly priced at what the market will bear.
Re:Not effective anyway (Score:2)
However. http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.x m l?avg.xml says that it isn't so good. In the VB labs, I think Norman is one of the better ones, but costs money!! So until I do get virused, I'll stick with the free AVG.
symantec did quite well though http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archi
Re:Not effective anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not effective anyway (Score:2)
but it's not free. the trial version expires the end of September, while the retail version has a 2 year license fee. (no idea how this compares to symantec in cost or duration).
Re:Not effective anyway (Score:2, Informative)
Product activation works. (Score:5, Insightful)
while NO anti-piracy strategy is foolproof (we can only talk about rates of piracy, not absolute values), the fact of the matter is that product-activation can be done without sending the user's SSN and first-born through the lines.
Actually, I'm just pissed off that some asshole russians wrote "crack" programs (still widely available on all those cracks sites) to break the security of a previous version of some shareware i wrote (cost of shareware: $20 and for a very specialized audience). So, in a later version of my software, I included a type of product activation and wrote a code in such a way that the compiled stuff would be harder to figure out. 2.5 yeas later - still no crack out fot the software that I can find anywhere, plus I am secure in the knowledge that my reg codes are doing a lot less walking.
Fair is fair.
Re:Product activation works. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Product activation works. (Score:2)
<ahem> Web services, anyone?
Re:Product activation works. (Score:4, Insightful)
It tends to be very easy to find a copy of windows xp and ways to crack it's copy protection system, gets a little harder to even find a copy of exchange server for instance, the more specialized the program, the less useful it often becomes to your average pirate.
in your case you were lucky as it sounds like there wasn't much of a demand for a crack for your code, however, I have no doubt that if it was being used by even... 1 in 100 computer users out there, that someone would have spent the time to develop one.
Copy protection, even product activation is nothing more then a lock on a door, often before someone even starts to pick a lock, they see if there is anything worthwhile which it protects, to offset the time of breaking in. Same goes for software.
So in a way... as sad as it sounds... it is good to be small, and thus less of a target.
Re:Product activation works. (Score:2)
You're absolutely right. I don't want to say too much about it, but my software is also of interest to people in the USA 99.99% of the time, and it would be clear to anybody that I am not making money off the $20 that I was charging. therefore, it was very obvious to me that somebody cracked my previous software simply for the sport of it (it was done by a russian, or, at le
Re:Product activation works. (Score:3, Insightful)
I will gladly second your opinion. If Symantec writes the software and distributes it under a proprietary license then the user has two choices regarding getting and using the software:
One: The user buys the software therefore ACCEPTING whatever license that comes with the software. No one forces you to buy the software and if you do then you are liable for your own actions. Symantec then has the right to do whatever it pleases with ITS property (you own the right to use it under the EULA, you do not o
Re:Product activation works. (Score:2)
Re:Product activation works. (Score:2)
When I buy something I want it, I don't want to get permission to use my DVD everytime I move apartments.
Yes, I know that I am buying a license to use software but don't make me go through hoops to use it. Yes, to me it is hoops. This was the major reason for me moving to Linux.
Fair is fair.
Re:Product activation works. (Score:2)
Oh, puleeeeze. RORing is so, like, 1990s, man. Everyone knows about it. Today's discriminating L337 H8x0r uses ROLing instead, for added security.
Re:Product activation works. (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't doing the job? (Score:4, Insightful)
And like most methods of protection, I wouldn't be surprised if Symantec's product activiation was cracked pretty quickly indeed. I suspect Symantec would be better off spending the money they spend on developing/buying this technology adding to the fund they use to pursue and close down the spammers who try and sell pirated copies of Norton AV, System Works et al.
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
why don't ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:why don't ... (Score:2)
In the last 5 years of internet use I've been infected by 2 viruses. The first was one of the Chernobyl strains and I have no idea where that came from. The second came from a silly shockwave flash exe that I ran - I was new. These two happened within the first 6 months. I then bought NAV.
In the last 4.5 years I've not been infected*. Why? I'm educated now, not because NAV is doing its job.
I still run a NAV to this day but I have never renewed my licence. I use the
Yeah right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Installed, and what pops up... Oh your virus files are out of date! Please visit our website.
The notebook was BRAND NEW...
This is called a money grab, boys and girls...
Re:Yeah right... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yeah right... (Score:2)
Not suprised (Score:3, Interesting)
content vs software (Score:5, Interesting)
- make the update protocol encrypted and secured;
- make virus pattern update sucription for money;
- release the client software itself for free;
- ???
- Profit!
Why? I hate product activation - it never works and users are always frustrated.Besides, the scanning and curing are not complicated operations per se. Virus patterns are the content that I am ready to pay money. Therefore the the other business model: charging for content rather than for software.
Re:content vs software (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:content vs software (Score:2)
No, because I for one just hate the people who are stupid enough to buy these printers, and therefore add to a just-buy-cheap-and-throw-away-later culture.
And no, because in this case, the cost of creating the "content" (virus definitions) _constitutes_ the main expenses of the antivir software companies (as opposed to your printer example).
Therefore this prize model is better for the c
Step 4. (Score:2)
Finally, the plan is complete..!
Re:content vs software (Score:2)
Sorry to say this, but it does, at least with Windows XP. Most of the time, the auto-activate feature works fine on the first try, and if you do have to call Microsoft, they are quite reasonable.
So what is wrong with that? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anti-piracy technology (Score:5, Interesting)
It's difficult if not impossible to duplicate a hardware lock (parallel port dongle), and it costs money to do.
It would cost Symantec about $5 in mass production to include a dongle with their anti-virus software. It would cost the average person $25 to make that same lock, and would be difficult if not impossible to duplicate the firmware...
Software methods for anti-piracy were killed by copyiipc back in the 80's....
Re:Anti-piracy technology (Score:2)
Re:Anti-piracy technology (Score:2)
The average joe can't duplicate a port dongle, but it's not like it can't be done. I remember this was the fad in the 1980's. Usually if it's a popular application, someone will post the plans to duplicate it. PC users were most annoyed because they couldn't use their printer with the parallel port dongle, so they found cracked versions of the software.
I ditched their products ages ago.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Recent version do NOT check binaries' integrity using any sort of fingerprinting, be it crc32, md5, sha1 or whatever, thus forcing you to rely on the yearly subscription of virus signature updates. That's not because innoculation was broken or even not user-friendly enough (it was off by default), that's was a pure 100% unadulterated marketing decision!
Interestingly, the free-for-personal use personal firewall product I'm using DOES use checksums to check whether binaries that may have specific permissions (to access the internet or open ports) have changed!
Re:I ditched their products ages ago.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember long long ago in the DOS days, when software came by way of floppy that these executables didn't change much. I think things are different now.
Those evil bastards... (Score:2)
Their marketing department stopped making decisions based on adultery - what is this world coming to? I always fancied a romp in the sack with my married coworker before deciding on any marketing decision.
Too late as well (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, when the customer tries to register the (bogus) product he probably bought it already. So it's too late as well, isn't it?
I wonder why not earlier... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've bought one back home and run it on all of my (2) home Windowsses, after all Norton is almost a synonym for quality when it comes to Windows utilities. I've also installed few from some public www page, where NIS 2003 (includes NAV 2003) was spread in 40MB fully working package.
Maybe they are just playing it wisely, waiting for the fuzz about M$ fascistic moves calmed down and then switching their own system on.. Can't blame them, this is IMHO the only way to go, no other realistic options.. However, I doubt that this will give them much more money, as hopefully most of the commericial side is already using their products legally so this would mostly target home and lifeless w4r3z d00ds
Though I have to admit that I haven't read any recent statistics about pirated stuff used at workplaces, only heard news that it'd be going down all the time (at least here in Finland or Scandinavia.. I have very bad memory
-rzei
The REAL problem with their products... (Score:5, Insightful)
They think they're God because they are a gold partner with Microsoft. Well, basically, I told them what they could do with themselves and went with Sophos instead who offered much more (an entire SITE license) for only half that price.
In light of this new info (concerning product activation), I'm that much gladder we didn't go with them this time around. Too bad, I rather liked Norton on Exchange 2000. But, there comes a time when you realize that paying more for the anti-virus software than for what the anti-virus software is running on simply doesn't make sense.
This could lower the price (Score:4, Insightful)
There then is an argument that this could lower the price that Symantec needs to (and does) charge the legitimate users.
I'm a big Linux enthusiast, but also fully support closed source and charging if that's what software companies need to do to make money. Without this, they wouldn't be in business so it's naturally their right.
Re:This could lower the price (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This could lower the price (Score:2)
That is a rather large assumption. The Windows XP activation scheme has been cracked since day one. For a popular product, activation means that less illicit use rather than no illicit use.
Avast (Score:5, Informative)
I personally can't see what extra features would make me fork out on a costly alternative, that i can only install on one machine due to product activation, even though i have more that one pc at home...
So use AVG (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So use AVG (Score:2)
I used to use McAfee. Then the last update installed some 'malware' cartoonish GUI that would pop ads for their products up all the time. I couldn't get the POS to go away. I had to get McAfee support on the line to tell me how to rip it out.
I preferred McAfee until then. Now I'll never use them again. With Norton moving to this 'everyones a pirate unless they register'
I guess we saw this one coming (Score:5, Interesting)
buyer protection (Score:2)
Yes, let's protect buyers from the genuine Symantec versions; the fake ones simply have to be working better--they couldn't work any worse.
If they really "care about consumers"..... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have nothing against antipiracy/product activation per se. But I do object to schemes that force people to pay up front and then jump through a series of hoops that have a non-zero probability of failure. Until a company delivers value, it should not expect consumers to deliver payment.
Activation (Score:2)
I hope more software providers do the same (Score:4, Interesting)
I, for one, am happy with Symantec's decision and hope that many much more Windows software companies do the same. The more obnoxious they get the more likely people are to go and look for alternatives that actually allows them to do their job instead of going in their way.
This trend looks like the proprietary software industry trying to shoot itself in the foot to me, and I welcome them to try.
Recent Live Update changes ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've also noticed that after a recent "Live Update" and reboot of my machine that one of the Symantec executables (ccApp.exe I think) insists on contacting crl.verisign.com when it didn't before...
Personally, I am getting tired of all this extra effort just to use a damn piece of software I purchased legally. I'm also tired of every single application wanting to contact the mothership for some reason.
I was wondering when this would happen (Score:2)
Of course last week when the SoBig/Blaster fiasco was in full bloo
Symantec definition updates are actually free.... (Score:2)
Symantec make the virus definition updates freely available for you to download EVEN IF YOUR LIVE UPDATE SUBSCRIPTION HAS LAPSED. - Just yse teh "manual" definitions and teh "intelligent updater" - it's a bt more tedious because you have to remember to go to the site, download the updates and install them by hand - but it CAN be do
This might help Linux (Score:2, Interesting)
In fact, there is evidence that the big players even tolerate a bit of this kind of thing because they recognise that to penetrate this "lower end" of the m
damn... (Score:3, Funny)
Damn!!! my $5 copy of Norton Antivirus 2008 isn't legit.
Wow! Who'da thunk.
Product activation will kill the computer industry (Score:5, Interesting)
Now imagine thinking about buying a new computer. You have all of that money invested in software which is tied to old computer. Suddenly, the cost of that new computer is a LOT more because you have to buy your software all over again.
Of course, defenders of product activation will say that you'll be able to remove the software from the old system and install it on the new system. But do we know that for certain?! It certainly didn't work that way for TurboTax users.
Essentially, switching will become a risk. You might be able to use some of your software, but some you will not. Plus, that old computer will have absolutely no software on it, thus, it'll be rendered useless.
Some will argue that installing software on two computers you own is illegal. They'd be right, BUT, and this is a big BUT, CONSUMERS ARE USED TO IT. They've been doing it that way from the very beginning. When consumers get used to doing something one way, they get pissed when it changes.
When product activation is widespread, Dell, Gateway, and every other computer manufacturer can kiss their asses goodbye.
Who really loses out with activation? (Score:2)
A. The companies that include them in their products.
Explanation: Private people who know where to find cracks for products will do so regardless of whether there is PA or not. WinXP, OfficeXP, etc, and pretty soon NAV as well have or will be cracked. Businesses in poorer countries especially, will revolt against PA, not only because at least some of the products they were using were cracks, but because they often installed one product on all the computers i
We switched last week (Score:3, Informative)
Uninformed discussion is so entertaining (Score:3, Informative)
It would appear that few here have bothered to go look at Symantec's web site [symantec.com] to see what they have to say about activation. Some of the things people have complained about, based solely on reading the Slashdot blurb, have no basis.
Interesting points are:
As a commercial software developer myself, I can understand why Symantec is doing this, though I too am amused at the "for your protection" approach that is so common. I also see activation is becoming more common (PowerQuest's new DriveImage 7 has it too), especially in products that people tend to buy once and install on multiple systems.
If formal and informal piracy wasn't so pandemic, such things would not be necessary. But it seems so many people believe that it's their RIGHT to steal software (or music), if they don't feel like paying for it. I know this is heresy for Slashdot, but there it is....
Best anti-virus is free (Score:5, Informative)
Allowing piracy invalidates copyright? (Score:4, Interesting)
Last time I talked to Symantec Tech Support about this, the support representative said that Norton SystemWorks was the most pirated software [google.com] in the world. He sounded proud. He said that all copies that are "CD only" are pirated, as are lots of the others. He said that the price should never be less than $60. (SystemWorks includes Norton AntiVirus.)
Even some of my distributors, very legitimate companies, offer a pirated SystemWorks, apparently unknowingly.
Allowing piracy until now seems to be a deliberate marketing policy of Symantec. The idea seems to be that people invest time in learning how a product works. Those who discover they have pirated copies may not want to invest time again. They may then buy a legitimate copy.
If allowing piracy is not a deliberate marketing policy of Symantec, does that mean that no one at Symantec is smart enough to use Froogle? It's not as though finding the illegal copies [google.com] is an expensive task.
Microsoft seems to have used this as a way of destroying competitors to DOS back in the old days, and with Microsoft Office more recently. There was a time when ALL local distributors were selling pirated copies of DOS (often unknowingly). I don't know if it is happening now, but at one time everyone who bought a computer from local builders was offered a "completely legal OEM copy" of Microsoft Office for $50. I called Microsoft and was told that all such copies were pirated.
Apparently, Microsoft's policy of allowing piracy was a way of killing competitors. Instead of Microsoft Office for $400 and Corel Word Perfect for $50, it was Microsoft Office for beaucoup moolah and Microsoft Office for cheap. It was impossible for Corel to establish Corel WordPerfect as a reasonable alternative. All second-tier products were crushed by the piracy of the most popular products.
Here's a question: Doesn't allowing piracy as a marketing tool invalidate the copyright?
When companies allow piracy, that makes it difficult for legitimate companies like ours. Our price doesn't seem competitive. Piracy as a marketing tool makes it seem like we are over-charging customers. It damages our reputation, and often prospective customers don't even give us a chance to explain.
Legal notice: I'm stating here my long-standing opinion only. I'm not saying I know anyone is a pirate, or a piracy encourager, only that they appear to me to be.
You Only Get 5 Activations with NAV 2K3! (Score:5, Informative)
NAV 2003 turned out to be a dog. It took 4 installs & activations before it worked properly on my Win 98 box.
A month later, I replaced my Win 98 box with a P4 box with Win XP. I installed & activated NAV 2003, which failed. I uninstalled and reinstalled it, then tried to activate it. I was informed (by Symantec's web site) that I had exceeded the maximum number of installs and was politely asked to purchase another license.
Three phone calls to Symantec tech support were useless. They repeatedly told me that this was Symantec's policy and absolutely refused to give me more installs FOR THE PROGRAM I BOUGHT FROM THEM. (Not from a store, but from Symantec's Web site itself!)
I just bought MacAfee's product earlier this week. To hell with Symantec and all of their crap.
Free virus scanners (Score:3, Informative)
Housecall [trendmicro.com] - online virus scanner-- got someone who thinks they have a virus? Just send em to this site, while it doesn't prevent viruses, it will tell you if any show up! Its good in a pinch, and if you think your current virus scanner might be missing something.
#@$% AntiVirus NAG pop-up! (Score:3, Informative)
I'll never buy anything from them again.
Re:Good - another reason for people to dump MS (Score:3, Insightful)
oh please (Score:2, Informative)
Re:oh please (Score:2, Funny)
Airgapped and buried, presumably.
Re:Antipiracy (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Antipiracy (Score:2, Informative)
Re:OpenSource Anti-Virus software (Score:3, Insightful)
Any potential exploits might be noticed by virus writers. However, they may also be noticed and patched by users or developers of the software.
Re:Finally! (Score:3, Funny)
But they do! They require you to give them (or their agents) a specially authenticated token - in exchange for this, you recieve an activated CD from them you can legally use, without fear of punishment or retribution. Certain different tokens (or combinations thereof) also allow you to volume license CD's from them. As it stands today, without this token-based product activation scheme , you cannot legally acqui