Users of Computer Associates' anti-virus products are understandably irate that a bad update left them with unusable systems.
Computer Associates found itself with some unhappy customers yesterday after a glitch in their virus definitions blacklisted a series of Windows XP system files.
As reported over on
CNet, the files – mostly releated to Windows XP Service Pack 3 – were automatically quarantined by the company's anti-virus software after mistakenly being diagnosed with the Win32/AMalum.ZZQIA virus.
It wasn't just files from Microsoft either: certain parts of the popular Cygwin Linux-style environment, often used by programmers and other techie types to implement functionality present in Linux but missing from Windows, were also quarantined.
This resulted in the files disappearing, seemingly deleted – and programs that rely on their presence refusing to work. While the files weren't actually deleted – by default, the CA anti-virus package renames the files' extensions to .AVB in order to prevent their execution – it proved to be a pain for many customers, who vented their anger on the company's official
forum.
Users of CA Internet Security Suite are advised to update to version 6606 of the virus signature database before using the GUI to release the affected files from quarantine, while corporate users with CA Threat Manager are asked to manually find all files with a .AVB extension and rename them.
So far Computer Associates has given no indication of how the definitions got through testing with such a major error, nor made any offer of restitution to its irate users beyond an automated file rename utility which is available via the company's customer service department.
Should Computer Associates be offering some kind of gesture to the customers affected by this mistake, or has the company already lost too much goodwill to make the effort worth its while? Share your thoughts over
in the forums.
the biggest piece of s**t software company that you will ever come across. they use to partner with IBM back in the day and after a series of large cock ups IBM stopped using them
Let's go over this:
- White background
- Funny green pattern along the bottom, visually pleasing but not abrasive or distracting
- Bold, strong font, yet not aggressive or intimidating
- Photos of random people using their computers and looking happy
- Some attractive twenty-thirty-something woman, dressed in such a way as to be appealing to men, yet not offensive to other women, looking confident and assured that her computer is in good hands
My brain wants to kill itself.
Oh, and yeah, nice ****-up or whatever.
Lazy arses.
But ya, if they didn't have a command line tool or iso image that auto fixed the files, and updated the A/V, you bet I would bring the caps lock down on them.
True, but this issue isn't Windows moving the ground under the software... it's the software moving the ground under itself and every other bit of software on the computer. ;) Fact is this error should never have been let past QC/A.
But doesn't that illustrate my point? Architects & engineers have to account for things like ground movement, subsidence, weather or any number of external factors which will have a drastic impact on their project. It's the same principle with building software: you have to try and think of every possible scenario and account for it. Obviously you can't account for everything; firstly it would be impossible to think of every possible scenario, but you run the risk of products languishing development hell with endless feature creep and never actually getting the product out (case in point: Duke Nukem Forever). But the purpose of effective testing, quality control, alpha/beta releases, etc is to anticipate problems that could occur and iron out as much as possible as early as possible. Where I work, we're given a rough rule of thumb: each time a code defect moves to the next stage of development (design, build, code test, QA test, user acceptance test, release), the cost to fix it increases tenfold. So something that would cost £1 to fix during code testing would cost £1000 to fix if it was present in the finished product.
In general, the lack of effective quality control is endemic throughout the software industry. Another recent blog post, and it's comments, lamented the fact that game developers often push products to market without having tested them properly; the resultant patches are often also poorly thought out and can sometimes break games. Those who have invested the money are too eager to see a ROI (return on investment) and often care little for the quality of the product: if it's out there and it's selling units, who cares if it's broken? It's making a profit and it can't be *that* bad because people are buying it.
I'm being very non-specific here, and probably tarring a lot of people with the same brush. Doubtless there are software houses out there that pride themselves on the quality of the product above all else. However if you look at the entire industry as a whole, that isn't generally the case. And it's not through the fault of the developers; their code is their bread and butter so it's only natural to want to do a good job, but there are other factors to consider when releasing a product (namely money).
It's a difficult balancing act to get it right, but clearly CA failed spectacularly here.
Heh... Spot the guy who works in software testing.... ;)
xp itself had nothing to do with this problem and yes vista has screwed up enough things it most likely
would have been blamed if this had happened in vista, lol !!