Symantec Adds DRM To Norton Antivirus

Symantec began offering DRM-enabled, downloadable versions of the English-language Symantec Norton Antivirus software to consumers in January, although customers were not able to choose between the DRM-enabled software and non-DRM versions, according to Del Smith, senior product manager for Norton Antivirus. Smith called the pilot a "test".

Full story:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1009112,00.asp

 

I am not so sure DRM is the way to go but I do know this.
Many people use KAzza ect to download their AV. I also know some of these copies DO contain hidden trojans. The trojans were not added by Symantec but rather the evil perrson supplying the software via the internet. If there is no form of athenicatioin scheme, these uneducated people think they are when when in all actuality, they are not. The software seems to funtion just fine to them, even to the point of finding all the trojans and viri it normaly would find.

This is only my view on the subject but then I have been a law abiding person all my life

 

Hi controler,

This reaction describes best what first came to my mind when I read this:

If they choose to go through wit this, I know of at least one (paying)customer they can wave goodbye.

Regards,

Pieter

 

One thing I don’t get: Symantec must have knowledge of the troubles this activating system caused and causes consumers of XP ( see the quote in Pieter_Arntz’ post).
So-knowing this- why does Symantec try to test ( they call it a pilot) this DRM.
Why not study the possibilities of more consumer-friendly tools to protect their software? Or else…let it be.
Unfortunately I don’t use Norton otherwise I could have joined Pieter

 

I prefer to take a "wait and see" attitude toward this. It's no secret that NAV is one of the most pirated pieces of software in the business (and most probably home user) software world, simply because of the way the program behaves re: updates and reinstalls, and I'm sure most people who read this forum are aware of it.

I do know for a fact that along with Microsoft, Symantec products are front and center for BSA audits--again, because it's so easy to reinstall and receive updates without reregistering.

I'm sure that's something Symantec is trying to address.

 

In my experience, I've found this "hassle" to be tremendously exaggerated/overblown. Although I don't really want the "hassle" either, I've found the reregistering process to be pretty painless.

Maybe I'm in the minority.

 

Have you ever re-registered software with DRM? The only one I have is Intuit's Quicken, and it went okay.... Let me ask, what AV's out there DO NOT use DRM? NOD32? McAFee? Etrust? PC CILLIN?

This is getting scary...

 

NOD32, McAfee and ETrust don't use DRM!



Technodrome

 

Hi Shooter,

I was speaking specifically about WXP, but yes, Autodesk products (Viz and 3DMax) come to mind, also. I work with apps in an educational setting, so we go through this a lot.

What it comes down to, is the vendor wanting to limit redistribution and manage the license. Period.

Examples:

NOD32 uses the "time limited" password/account procedure to enforce their license. PCC uses the auth code/key system with a verified e-mail addy. "Do any av vendors NOT use DRM?" None I've worked with!

Everyone is *trying* to use some form of DRM--however crude or rudimentary it actually is.

I think the underlying/unsaid issue raised by the topic is the possibility of privacy invasion--but that's a different issue, if everyone is really honest about it!

 

You need to learn the difference between DRM and Password Protective server.

PC-Cilin uses DRM Technique. Every time you restore or change hardware on your system you need to re-register product. After that you receive different key-code. Old one won't work!

ESET (NOD32) assigns you password that will work during you license agreement and will not change not matter what you do to your system.


Technodrome

 

Technodrome,

Maybe I'm splitting hairs...

I can't speak for McAfee or ETrust products, but an install of NOD32 will not effectively update without a valid user/password combination, right?

I'm not speaking about the programs ability to be installed and updated on multiple machines using that combination--we know that's possible, and I believe that's what Symantec is trying to address--what I'm pointing out is the attempt to manage the license in the first place using *some* form of DRM.

It seems to me that what puts people off (and I'm not excluding myself from the list!) is the *effectiveness* of the method itself!

 

Technodrome,

Thanks for the suggestion!

I know the difference quite well, let me assure you.

As I mentioned in the post above--my point is that each software vendor is trying to control the management of the license in some way. DRM or Digital Rights Management is an evolving standard, do you agree?

Whether or not it's coded in the software, or uses an ancient server/password authorization scheme, it all boils down to MANAGING the users RIGHTS to the software. Now it has a fancy name and is more restrictive.

Thanks for the tutorial!

 

That's right, Jim ! But what I am talking about here is DRM Technique! Every attempt to change your hardware or restore system will require re-registration of product. If you fail to re-register product you won't be able to update.

This technique is already used by PC-Cillin ( as much as I understand Symantec will do similar if not the same). How effective? It’s been already cracked! But it does decrease piracy.

In case of NOD32 , If you restore or change hardware on your computer you do not need to change your Password or User name. Therefore no new registration is required.

Same goes for EZ antivirus.



Technodrome

 

Technodrome,

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying. We're really splitting hairs here.

Using your example: If you reformat your hard drive with NOD32 on it and reinstall everything, do you not have to re-enter your user name and password, or is it already filled in for you? You have to enter it, right? In effect--you ARE reregistering it. It won't work otherwise, right?

Conversely: You reformat and reinstall your copy of PCC and have to get a new key from Trend, because the old one doesn't work. It won't work otherwise, right?

Whether the user or the vendor has the "magic touch" is not germane to my point.

What I think irritates people (myself included) is the fact that the vendor now has more control of the software than the user had!

Your point about decreasing piracy (and multiple installs fall in this category) is absolutely correct. That's what my (convoluted, admittedly!) original point was!

 

Well, then, NOD32 and McAfee do not use DRM.. Thank you for your answer. I appreciate your help...

I knew what the difference between DRM and passwords, but I'm glad I asked about PC Cillin, because I remember now about it

Thanks !

 

Shooter,

If NAV goes something similar to what PCC uses, it's pretty much a breeze to reinstall. Takes 5 minutes. Not as easy as punching in a user/pw like NOD or heaven help us, AVG, but there you go....

 

JimIT,

We are on the same track (kind of) . It’s just that NOD32 uses different kind of technique or approach to decrease piracy(password protection).

McAfee uses the same technique as a current version of Norton (not DRM version).

 

But how many times the new key will be issued? What if you do 20 or more system restores? What if you change hardware constantly?

How far they'll go?


Technodrome

 

Those are good questions, and I don't have an answer. I do know that I've done two system restores (which required a new key each time) and pulled the hdd w/PCC and threw it in a completely new box, and it *didn't* require a new key.

Also, I do understand what you are referring to when you refer to DRM re: NOD, etc., and I agree with you 100% I'm not saying I *like* what NAV might do. My point was that as the technology of controlling a users license to use software becomes more sophisticated, it will cause more "irritation" with consumers. And that it's just a progression from what developers have always *tried* to do.

Most software users (myself included) sometimes lose sight of the fact that most EULA's only grant the right to *use* the software for a limited time--it's not the purchasers property, in other words--unlike say, a hdd, which you legitimately *own*. Considering that fact, the vendor has every right to control it as they see fit, in my opinion.

*ducking for cover*

Does that mean I have to like it? Heck no! Does that mean I have to buy it? Heck no!


There's an old saying in retail: "Customers vote with their feet." Translation: "I don't have to shop here. I'll just walk out and walk in to a store that's more comfortable/has lower prices/is no hassle."

I think that adage can certainly apply in this case!