Symantec AV v10.0.0.359 question...

[Izagaia]

This is a rather odd characteristic I seem to be experiencing and am wondering if anyone else using the application is noticing something similiar or perhaps can explain to me one way or the other...


I am currently running Symantec's Client Security v3.0. One of the new features of the antivirus bundled therin is a "tamper protection" option that to the best of my knowledge, prevents other applications and malware from making certain changes to your system and to the antivirus client. I am also using Sunbelt's "Counterspy" v1.0.29. And so far as I am aware, the two known serial keys currently floating about the internet seem to now be black-listed and will not take the program out of it's "demo/trial" status.

Now for my question/observation:

Counterspy enables "active protection" on all monitors, by default, immediately after it is installed and the system is rebooted. With having SAV's tamper protection enabled, Counterspy could not enable protection until AFTER I disabled SAV. Strange thing is that I can enable/disable Counterspy as much as I wish now without having to touch SAV. Counterspy is also in it's demo/trial stage and on my system it seems that my time period is not counting down at all. Yesterday I had 13 days left on my time period- today I have 14. It has been bouncing around like that up and down for days since I have installed it afer my latest reformat. Prior to that, I had been running SCS v3.0 and Counterspy and the time period did that for two or three months without expiring. Good for me, I suppose.


But I was wondering if SAV is to blame for this little stroke of good luck or if there was something else "screw-y" going on?

[peat moss]

Symantec AV v10.0.0.359 And Giant 1.0.301 seem to work well to together . But I never noticed Sav acting up but Giant ask for changes to the start up. Did you put your clock ahead before installing Counterspy ?

[Izagaia]

I never touched the time settings. Never thought about doing that either to buy time in any "trial" application.

Of course, this time it appears as if I would not need to. I am not complaining, mind you. I am just rather curious about this little "adverse effect" I believe these two applications are having.