| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 42052 | 2004-01-30 08:59:00 | NAV 2002 LiveUpdate problem | Emile (3552) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 211336 | 2004-01-30 08:59:00 | On one of my PCs (OS is W98 SE) I run Norton AntiVirus 2002. Problem is LiveUpdate : it doesn't update. When I run it manually, I get advised that all Symantec components and products are up to date. But I KNOW that new virus signatures are available. Subscription doesn't expire until July this year. Searched Symantec tech support site but to no avail. Would anyone have any ideas ? I'd be grateful for any help. TVMIA. Emile. |
Emile (3552) | ||
| 211337 | 2004-01-30 09:27:00 | Emile Try phoning Symantec on 0800 445 304 and see what they suggest you do. You have obviously paid for a service you are not receiving. Have you checked to see if the files have in fact downloaded? Oxie (Lyn) |
Oxie (1318) | ||
| 211338 | 2004-01-30 10:48:00 | Lyn, Looks like I'm going to have to contact Symantec. And no, no files have been downloaded. Somehow LiveUpdate thinks that the files are up to date when in fact they're not. Thanks, Emile. |
Emile (3552) | ||
| 211339 | 2004-01-30 11:00:00 | Have a look at this article from Symantec Support - here (service1.symantec.com) The information here (service1.symantec.com) however should help as well. :) |
Jen C (20) | ||
| 211340 | 2004-01-30 11:03:00 | i'm surprised you didn't find the article on this problem. they do have it and the fix. sorry i havn't got the time to go hunt it out. btw what is the date of the virus defs? and take a look at the update logs for any error messages. |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 211341 | 2004-01-31 05:41:00 | Thanks, I will give that a go. I'd already found this article but did not follow up on it since contrary to what it said under the Situation, LiveUpdate did NOT perform a download in my case. But it's worth a try. Thanks a agin, Emile. |
Emile (3552) | ||
| 211342 | 2004-01-31 05:43:00 | There were no errors in the log. The signatures date was given as 26/1/04 whereas at that time, signatures for 29/1/04 were already available. See my other reply as to why I did not initially use the article - I will do so now. Thanks, Emile. |
Emile (3552) | ||
| 1 | |||||