Apparently, Symantec released an anti-virus patch yesterday that (a) wasn't signed (per the AV releases they were updating), and (b) phones home with as-yet-unknown details about installed clients. So, not only did they get caught, Symantec might have been caught loading spyware of some kind.
Now folks, this is a pants-down moment that's critical enough, as-is. Symantec then decided to respond to the flood of "what is this executable" inquiries by deleting the offending posts from its support boards. Then, someone called for /b/ackup, and The Internet showed up shortly thereafter.
Symantec's eventual PR response to the flap included several choice headlines from the denizens...
- O LAWD IM CHOKIN ON PIFTS PLZ HALP
- OH GOD YOU GOT CHOCOLATE IN MY PIFTS
- If you wanna be my NORTON/ you gotta deal with my P ! F T S . E X E
- IF PIFTS.EXE WAS HERE, THEN WHO WAS PHONE?
- PIFTS.EXE PIFTS.EXE PIFTS.EXE PIFTS.EXE PIFTS.EXE PIFTS.EXE PIFTS.EXE
- I LOVE MY PIFTS.EXE
...without any hint of explanation what said patch was doing phoning home in the first place. At this point, Symantec's been caught dead-to-rights, and the only question is that of payload. Stay tuned, and I won't be surprised if I hear/read something about a whistleblower in the coming weeks.
[Regardless of what happens, Symantec might well have been caught spying on someone's behalf; now open questions exist of what information is being sent to whom, and where else in their products this activity already occurs.] | 