Symantec has bad FP

For starters this is not a typical FP. It is more like a bad classification of gray ware. Second, really only affected one Symantec user. It just to happened the user was an ISP and the effect cascaded. Perhaps the ISP should have had better contingency plans in effect. Finally, I see this as being far less serious than an FP on a windows component as was recently done by Kaspersky. By the way, Slashdot picked up the story today.

There are a few around here who for some strange reason think FP's are an indication of aggressive and effective heuristic detection. I hope this changes their minds. Any AV with a regular incidence of FP's is sooner or later going to have one that causes a lot of trouble.

 

CyberSitter files were either deleted or banned from use by Norton

Automatic cleaning fails yet again..

 

Quickly fixed? Who are you kidding? Symantec abandoned the phone help line 24 hours after they were forced to set it up, and offered NO help, no fix for an entire week. Kaspersky would have had it fixed in a couple of hours (and I'm no KAV fan as everyone here knows).

 

stop complaining

 

That is supposition.

 

Kaspersky has also had false positives, as shown here. It happens.

 

its happened in the past, present and will happen in the future.

symantec, get slated more so, because they are such a big company.

 

That's true. Both times Symantec had a false positive it was big news and posted all over the place. The same with MS OneCare when it deleted OE/Outlook .pst and .dbx files on two different occasions.

I did not know about Kaspersky's FP until I read about it here. Searching around I do not see any news of it on places like Neowin (where Symantec and MS's screwups always make front page).