Sure? Try to use SEP Manager without this crack (and real license too) after 60-days of {standard} trial period. You will be surprised...
Both of you are right....SEP doesn't need a crack and SEPM need a .lic file for working after 60 days trial, right?
yes symantec endpoint protection in standalone no need crack / symantec endpoint protection manager and client managed by SEPM need license
I just noticed something strange with this build... Sure it no longer runs on 32-bit OS so it should contain fewer files, but the file structure between this one and the previous release (14.3.9205.6000 RU6 x64) is BIG. Not in the amount of dirs/files, but the file hierarchy seems very different to me. Anyone else think this is weird? Previous build: 33 dirs / 558 files This build : 39 dirs / 538 files (excluding the 2 files in root of archive) /x13
How the files are packed (whether archive or self-extracting) doesn't make a difference. I just looked at the content that's all. PS: A signed file could still contain bad stuff -- it's not fool proof. I haven't tested this release yet (tip: always do so in a bubble like Sandboxie or a Virtual machine). M.
The point made by x90126 is valid and important. Does anyone have the original executable from Symantec? The file is probably of the format Symantec_Endpoint_Protection_14.3.0_RU6_Refresh_Win64-bit_Client_EN.exe The links that have been provided here (and elsewhere on the Internet) point to re-compressed files (usually *.rar files) that have already been extracted from the original executable. Unfortunately, there is no way to determine if any of the files have been altered because there is no digital signature. While it is certainly possible to recombine the files into an executable *.exe file (e.g., using 7-zip), I think it is probably impossible to verify if the digital MD5, SHA-1, or SHA-256 signature of the original executable is authentic or not. Please be very hesitant to use an anti-virus tool that hasn't been verified with its digital signature.
@Steelhead2 @x90126 's comment seems to contradict your opinion, you say a digitally signed executable is the right thing to look for, not an uncompressed set of files. Sorry if I'm wrong cause maybe I misunderstood the whole thing. English is not my first language.