{"id":771,"date":"2006-05-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-05-30T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2006\/05\/30\/symantec-squashes-antivirus-bug\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:38:08","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:38:08","slug":"symantec-squashes-antivirus-bug","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/?p=771","title":{"rendered":"Symantec squashes antivirus bug"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Symantec Corp. has patched a widely reported flaw in the English versions of its corporate antivirus software.  The flaw, which affects recent versions of its Client Security and Antivirus Corporate Edition products is considered serious, and could be exploited by hackers to run unauthorized software on unpatched PCs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>It was discovered by rival security vendor eEye Digital Security Inc. and first disclosed last Wednesday (See &#8220;Researchers find flaw in Symantec antivirus.&#8221;).<\/p>\n<p>The patches are for English language versions of Symantec&#8217;s products only, and a Symantec spokesman could not say when the complete line of products would be patched.<\/p>\n<p>Symantec did not release many details on the flaw, but eEye has warned that it is the kind of vulnerability that could be used to build a self-replicating worm attack, similar to the Blaster and Slammer outbreaks of 2003.<\/p>\n<p>http:\/\/www.computerworld.com\/action\/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&#038;articleId=9000809&#038;source=NLT_PM&#038;nlid=8<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-771","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/771","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=771"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/771\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3258,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/771\/revisions\/3258"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=771"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=771"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=771"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}