NAV & symnrt.exe

  • Thread starter Thread starter Phil
  • Start date Start date
P

Phil

My sister called in a panic today, as her 1.6Ghz 256 meg, 20gig drive, Dell
PC is all but useless after working with Norton Anti-Virus 2004. The system
is extremely slow, even taking several minutes to put icons on the desktop,
and MS Word taking a couple of minutes. All far slower than before she did
the following.

Norton NAV 2004 subscription lapsed. She decided to install NAV 2006, so
uninstalled NAV 2004. Installation of NAV 2006 failed when she ran it from
their website (ordered on line), and directed her to a site to download
symnrt.exe. She ran symnrt.exe without a problem. System then was very
slow. Powered off and restarted with no change. Everything appears to
work, but system is agonizingly slow. I had her check some things. CPU
usage is very low, and memory usage appears fine. Wiped out all Symantec
files I can find. No Symantec or Live Update programs to be uninstalled.

What next? I forgot to check hard drive space, but will tomorrow.

- Phil
 
What next? I forgot to check hard drive space, but will tomorrow.
Click to expand...


Check for spyware/adware using a reliable product designed for that
pupose. Ditch NAV and get something a bit less cumbersome.
 
Bill said:
Check for spyware/adware using a reliable product
Ditch NAV and get something a bit less cumbersome.
Click to expand...

Ditch XP and install Windows 98.

Then install NAV 2002 (it's very economical).
 
Phil wrote:

Wiped out all Symantec
files I can find. No Symantec or Live Update programs to be uninstalled.

What next? I forgot to check hard drive space, but will tomorrow.

- Phil
Click to expand...

1. Remove all entries in the registry - "Symantec" or "Norton"
2. Remove all Symantec files - do a search on your drive for
"Symantec" or "Norton"
3. Defrag yourhard drive
** Anytime you remove a program and want to reinstall it you must
do this step. **
Othewise you may reinstall some same files which might be
corrupted.
4. Reinstall Norton AV.

NAV is initially setup for corporate work when you get it.
When you open it, click the "Options" Tab, click on
"auto-protect". In the bottom section change the selection to "Scan
files using smartscan". Just to the right of that you'll see a button
named "Customize". When you click that it shows the extensions that will
be scanned. If you leave it on "Comprehensive file scanning", you will
be scanning all of your files all the time which wll slow down any system.
I use NAV 2004 on one system and it works good.
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
My sister called in a panic today, as her 1.6Ghz 256 meg, 20gig drive, Dell
PC is all but useless after working with Norton Anti-Virus 2004. The system
is extremely slow, even taking several minutes to put icons on the desktop,
and MS Word taking a couple of minutes. All far slower than before she did
the following.

Norton NAV 2004 subscription lapsed. She decided to install NAV 2006, so
uninstalled NAV 2004. Installation of NAV 2006 failed when she ran it from
their website (ordered on line), and directed her to a site to download
symnrt.exe. She ran symnrt.exe without a problem. System then was very
slow. Powered off and restarted with no change. Everything appears to
work, but system is agonizingly slow. I had her check some things. CPU
usage is very low, and memory usage appears fine. Wiped out all Symantec
files I can find. No Symantec or Live Update programs to be uninstalled.

What next? I forgot to check hard drive space, but will tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Look for anything Norton/Symantec/LiveUpdate-related in Add/Remove Programs
and remove it, assuming that her computer isn't using any other
Norton/Symantec software.

It could be that NAV has left some driver files behind. To get into the
Computer Management window, right click My Computer->Manage.

Right-click on Device Manager->View->Show Hidden Devices.

Under "Non-Plug and Play Drivers" look for references to NAV or SYM,
disabling each in turn (if asked, only reboot after you've done them all).

You could try installing NAV 2006 and seeing if you can successfully manage
it, then uninstall/reboot/SymNRT again and buy Eset's NOD32 as it doesn't
gunk up the system :-)

Is the computer still that slow in Safe Mode?

If you open on the Task Manager, once it has booted and got past the
initial programs after logging in, is the "System Idle Process" getting
most of the CPU (>95%)?

Have you tried disabling any firewall/anti-spyware software? Did your
sister, in her panic, install any other anti-virus software?

Are there any errors or warnings in the Event Log, in the Computer
Management window?

HTH

Adam Piggott,
Proprietor,
Proactive Services (Computing)
http://www.proactiveservices.co.uk/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFDulzO7uRVdtPsXDkRAiBXAJ9AYNIxoxTxq0jxWLVQeWW0taBiHwCfRTvx
dr2ql5b6T4keDT5BSKbrcbA=
=6djX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:
..for which Microsloth will never issue a WMF exploit patch. <g>
Click to expand...

I take it <g> means <grin>, to indicate the irony that MS hasn't
released a patch for XP for the WMF exploit, which illustrates the
support priority they give to XP.

Remember that Bill Gates is LOATH, and I mean he HATES to give XP the
support it currently is getting. He thinks that he gave the world a
new, free OS when he gave everyone SP2 for free.

As for W-98 being un-supported, we see yet again another
pseudo-sysadmin claiming a lack of support for Win-98 as the reason
not to use it. What a lame reason. With 98se being out there for 5-6
years, could it be that the vast majority of it's failings have been
fixed? Na, couldn't be that simple. Could it be that it just plain
wasn't as broken as XP was when it first came out?

If Win-98 is unsupported, then why does WindowsUpdate still serve up
every and all critical updates for 98? How much support do you need?
 
If Win-98 is unsupported, then why does WindowsUpdate still serve up
every and all critical updates for 98? How much support do you need?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of exploits the entire still-in-use Windows range - not
just XP - is prey to, for which for 9x versions patches are not provided.
However, I'm sure you realize the redundance of citing WU's 'serving up
patches for 98' as proof of adequate support. I mean, what would you expect,
patches to be written for 98 but WU *not* provide access to them?

I use 98se, ME and XP and I'm a bit fed up with seeing the 9x systems also
affected by the latest discovered flaw, but no patch, only a workaround
suggested due to the extended support phase they're in. It doesn't bother me
otherwise as, like everyone else here on a regular basis, I consider Safe
Hex the best defence anyway, but for the majority of users 9x systems are
rapidly becoming, if not already are, no longer viable.


Shane

--


The Sugitive

Chapter One: http://tinyurl.com/bcevp

Chapter Two: http://tinyurl.com/ag92o

Chapter Three: Coming to an URL near you soon!

------------------------------------
 
Art said:
There are plenty of exploits ... for which for 9x versions
patches are not provided.
Click to expand...

Name some exploits for which Windows 98 is vulnerable and for which
Microsoft has NOT provided a patch or fix.
However, I'm sure you realize the redundance of citing WU's'
serving up patches for 98' as proof of adequate support.
Click to expand...

It's proof ->of support<-

Is it adequate support? I bet it is for most people.
I mean, what would you expect, patches to be written
for 98 but WU *not* provide access to them?
Click to expand...

Then what does Microsoft do for Win-XP (support-wise) that it doesn't
do for 98?
I'm a bit fed up with seeing the 9x systems also affected by
the latest discovered flaw,
Click to expand...

There has only been speculation that 9X is affected. It's off-hand,
fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants speculation that "of course, all
versions of Windows are affected by this, they must be".

Are all versions of windows sufficiently similar to be affected by
this current problem? Is that the knee-jerk speculation? If so, then
the logical extension is that Macro$haft has been snowing us for the
past 5 years with XP because it's obviously a dressed-up version of
Win-98.
but for the majority of users 9x systems are
rapidly becoming, if not already are, no longer viable.
Click to expand...

What are you smoking?

You want to practice safe hex? Then use Win-98 because it's been
proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that XP has been the biggest
security farce and exploit-platform the world has ever seen.
 
Virus Guy said:
Name some exploits for which Windows 98 is vulnerable and for which
Microsoft has NOT provided a patch or fix.
Click to expand...

Oh, wait, I'll spend half a morning searching out every KB for every XP
exploit released in the last couple of years, just to get you to argue with
honesty! How the **** would you know, since you obviously don't touch XP
with a bargepole?
It's proof ->of support<-
Click to expand...

No, it's an irrational statement, and I see I was wrong to assume you could
understand that.
Is it adequate support? I bet it is for most people.


Then what does Microsoft do for Win-XP (support-wise) that it doesn't
do for 98?
Click to expand...

Like I said - release patches for exploits 9x is also vulnerable to, but for
which patches are not written, only workarounds suggested.
There has only been speculation that 9X is affected. It's off-hand,
fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants speculation that "of course, all
versions of Windows are affected by this, they must be".
Click to expand...

Yeah, well I'm not saying anything about this particular exploit being a 9x
problem. I'm responding to your ludicrous extrapolation. You sound like
you've been on a four year fit of pique. I've also been against much of the
XP mindset, but I don't get emotionally involved, as I like to retain my
realism.
Are all versions of windows sufficiently similar to be affected by
this current problem? Is that the knee-jerk speculation? If so, then
the logical extension is that Macro$haft has been snowing us for the
past 5 years with XP because it's obviously a dressed-up version of
Win-98.


What are you smoking?
Click to expand...

I don't, mate. What are you not taking?
You want to practice safe hex? Then use Win-98 because it's been
proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that XP has been the biggest
security farce and exploit-platform the world has ever seen.
Click to expand...

It's not a problem if you practice Safe Hex. Don't you know that yet? You've
been here long enough.


Shane

--


The Sugitive

Chapter One: http://tinyurl.com/bcevp

Chapter Two: http://tinyurl.com/ag92o

Chapter Three: Coming to an URL near you soon!

------------------------------------
 
Back
Top