SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
| reply to dandelion
Re: McAfee false-positive glitch fells PCs worldwide
said by dandelion  :I am assuming... I wouldn't have interpreted that quote that way. I am assuming that McAfee provided users with addition information and warnings. I am assuming that when a product goes 100% unsupported no one can predict how it will perform or interact on a system into the future. At that point users are 100% on their own and potentially at risk for all kinds of unpleasantness. Just common sense. |
|
Oleg
Bellsouth Fastaccess
Premium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL | reply to Stem Bolt
Not surprised at all. |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to dandelion
said by dandelion :I am assuming possibly someone in the security field may interpret this that at the very least their machines would be open to new malware cropping up even hoping if the update is delayed at least the machines are still partially protected, yet the likelihood of that versus the entire machine crashing wouldn't be thought likely IMO. At least I wouldn't have interpreted that quote that way.  Symantec does the same and the same position is taken for home users. The message from McAfee is clear. "You wanna risk big fuckups stick with the old engine as we ain't gonna test the DAT files after February 1, 2008 on the 5100 engine."
I don't buy for one second that IT for those businesses was not aware of how this works with both Symantec and McAfee. They took a calculated risk and they lost big time.That is not McAfee's fault.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
mers2
Premium,MVM
join:2004-03-20
USA
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Stem Bolt
At least with Symantec, you can no longer get updates without going to a lot of trouble when their product goes unsupported. McAfee should have engineered their products the same way if an update is going to crash systems/networks. I'm pretty sure they lost customers because of this - and the bad publicity doesn't help. |
|
Cudni
La Merma - Vigilado
Premium,MVM
join:2003-12-20
Someshire
| said by mers2 :At least with Symantec, you can no longer get updates without going to a lot of trouble when their product goes unsupported. You can simply download and update manually 8.1 with all the risks that might bring
Cudni
--
"what we know we know the same, what we don't know, we don't know it differently."
Help yourself so God can help you.
Microsoft MVP, 2006 - 2009 |
|
mers2
Premium,MVM
join:2004-03-20
USA
clubs:
·AT&T U-Verse
1 edit | said by Cudni :said by mers2 :At least with Symantec, you can no longer get updates without going to a lot of trouble when their product goes unsupported. You can simply download and update manually 8.1 with all the risks that might bring Cudni That's what I meant by going to a lot of trouble. McAfee would have been better off to have that as the model for non supported versions, than allow it to continue auto-updating. That is a recipe for disaster and bad press - which is what they got.
Edited to add: What most people are going to remember is that a McAfee update made a lot of computers unusable.
--
"The best proof there is intelligent life in outer space is the fact it hasn't come here." Arthur C. Clark 1917-2008
Team Discovery
|
|
Cudni
La Merma - Vigilado
Premium,MVM
join:2003-12-20
Someshire
| said by mers2 :That's what I meant by going to a lot of trouble. McAfee would have been better off to have that as the model for non supported versions, than allow it to continue auto-updating. That is a recipe for disaster and bad press - which is what they got. It is not just McAfee to blame it is also the admins who allowed non supported software to break their network. Although they can always remind their bosses how they were refused the budget when they requested to update AV.
Cudni
--
"what we know we know the same, what we don't know, we don't know it differently."
Help yourself so God can help you.
Microsoft MVP, 2006 - 2009 |
|
mers2
Premium,MVM
join:2004-03-20
USA
clubs:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by Cudni :said by mers2 :That's what I meant by going to a lot of trouble. McAfee would have been better off to have that as the model for non supported versions, than allow it to continue auto-updating. That is a recipe for disaster and bad press - which is what they got. It is not just McAfee to blame it is also the admins who allowed non supported software to break their network. Although they can always remind their bosses how they were refused the budget when they requested to update AV. Cudni Yup, but I feel sorry for IT admins in this economy - and it's been going down the tubes for a couple of years. It's really hard to talk the boss into upgrading when the current system works fine and the AV is updating. I'd wager, though, that the bosses will now demand a different brand AV 'cause they'll think it's McAfee's fault.
--
"The best proof there is intelligent life in outer space is the fact it hasn't come here." Arthur C. Clark 1917-2008
Team Discovery
|
|
dandelion
Premium,MVM
join:2003-04-29
Germantown, TN
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| said by mers2 :said by Cudni :said by mers2 :That's what I meant by going to a lot of trouble. McAfee would have been better off to have that as the model for non supported versions, than allow it to continue auto-updating. That is a recipe for disaster and bad press - which is what they got. It is not just McAfee to blame it is also the admins who allowed non supported software to break their network. Although they can always remind their bosses how they were refused the budget when they requested to update AV. Cudni Yup, but I feel sorry for IT admins in this economy - and it's been going down the tubes for a couple of years. It's really hard to talk the boss into upgrading when the current system works fine and the AV is updating. I'd wager, though, that the bosses will now demand a different brand AV 'cause they'll think it's McAfee's fault. Looking at it in the "business" sense rather then security, I agree which was my point originally. As has been posted numerous times in this forum, it is amazing the number of people who wouldn't think security of their computer is all that important yet keep very sensitive data on it some businesses relying heavily on it.
--
Spare computer cycles can help find answers
Find A Cure!
|
|
elnino
join:2006-08-27
Akron, OH
| reply to mers2
said by mers2 :At least with Symantec, you can no longer get updates without going to a lot of trouble when their product goes unsupported. McAfee should have engineered their products the same way if an update is going to crash systems/networks. I'm pretty sure they lost customers because of this - and the bad publicity doesn't help. Actually, this is kinda what McAfee did already. The Auto-Update on 8.0i doesn't update to anything newer than Nov 30, 2008. But, if they're running a centralized management server for McAfee, it can manually FTP into McAfee and download the DAT updates and push them out to the end users.
If this company was paying maintenance/support costs to McAfee, upgrades to the software are free. Should have been no reason for them to be running an unsupported version of their software. Yeah, it "was working" for them, but in an unsupported fashion. They could have even pushed out a new version of the McAfee client from the management server |
|
