Norton Internet Security 2011 part 1

tw33k

Quote:

Bottom Line: The 2011 edition of Norton Internet Security fine-tunes its already-excellent protection. In addition, a new interactive panel makes the suite a clearinghouse for information from Norton's web-based services. Norton remains our Editors' Choice for security suite.

Full Review

KremmenUK

I've been running NIS since the 2001 version and I've never had any problems.

These latest ones since 2009 have been extremely light on resources and the Norton Community forum is proving a big success in giving user feedback to the people who matter.

Unfortunately there are still people posting on the net that it is a resource hog even though they haven't used it for years.

NIS is now continually coming at or towards the top of reviews.

tw33k

Yeah, earlier versions left a bad taste in some people's mouths (I being one of them). And because of this, even though it ranks fairly high on most independent testing, I would not use or recommend it.

Maxxwire

I agree Symantec has made huge improvements in the way NIS uses resources, and so that is probably not a valid reason to avoid it any longer. That said, in my opinion, ALL suites hog resources, typically because they contain features most users just don't need, or want.

I have two reasons I'm not crazy about NIS in particular - well, four really, but I'll get back to them later.

1. I don't like how it comes bundled on new systems and then marketed in such a way that users, now used to the UI, are intimidated to remove it or try something else when the trial period expires, for fear something will break and the badguys will take over.

2. It rarely uninstalls cleanly, often leaving not only orphaned files and folders, but (and this is what irritates me) services and applets that continue to load during start up. It is typically necessary to use special removal tools to rid the drive, and Registry of all traces.

Now back to the other 2 reasons - which are not exclusive to just NIS, but to most suites from the big players.

3. They costs money - not only to buy initially, but there are recurring costs too. When there are many, fully capable, less intrusive "free" alternatives out there, I just don't see why home (non-commercial) users should have to pay.

4. Way back many years ago when Microsoft really was trying to rule the world, MS tried to put, among other things, an anti-virus applet into Windows because they foresaw virus activity was increasing and more and more badguys were discovering how profitable, and easy to exploit, this new thing called the World Wide Web was. But Norton/Symantec, McAfee, CA, and a few other early AV makers cried and whined to Congress and the EU that Microsoft was trying to monopolize the world and push them out of business. They testified it was their job to rid the world of viruses, worms, etc. And Congress and the EU, already hounding MS for their strong-armed marketing techniques, agreed with the AV community.

We see how well that worked out! They failed miserably! Malware has mushroom insidiously, not only in quantity, but in maliciousness and in methods of delivery. And in the meantime, the biased IT media and Microsoft/Bill Gates bashers have relentlessly blamed Microsoft, and not the badguys, or the politicians who failed to fund law enforcement of even the existing rules against malware and software piracy (a major source of malware).

I ask, "what incentive does Norton/Symantec, McAfee, CA, Trend Micro, etc. have to rid the world of malware?" They don't have any! If they stopped malware at the source, that will put them out of business and they don't want that.

Microsoft, on the other hand, has huge incentives to rid the world of malware because they keep getting blamed for the security situation we are in today - even though it is the badguys (to include corrupt ISPs and 3rd world government leaders) who put us here.

So now, there are several excellent anti-malware products, to include Microsoft Security Essentials (which I use on all my systems) that are totally free, not huge resource hogs, and do not contain all sorts of unnecessary features. Most importantly, these programs are just as capable of protecting us from the badguys. They cost nothing initially, there are no recurring renewal fees, and there is plenty of free technical support available. For those reasons, I cannot justify paying for, or recommending a product that offers no real advantage over something we can get for free.

malexous

�� Quote: Originally Posted by tw33k

Yeah, earlier versions left a bad taste in some people's mouths (I being one of them).

Same here. Norton Internet Security 2009 allowed Malware into my computer and kept it a secret until another security program alerted me to the infection and it was removed. Just a note according to Sysinternals Process Explorer NIS 2009 used over 300 MB of RAM while it was on my computer since then I have installed much more sophisticated and comprehensive free computer security protection that Windows Task Manager reports as using just 5.2 MB of RAM. I'll let the reader decide whether NIS is bloated or not.

~Maxx~
.

Victek

It's 2010 and the 2011 version of Norton is released...

Uses about 10MB on my machine. Doesn't seem bloated to me.

madtownidiot

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Digerati

I ask, "what incentive does Norton/Symantec, McAfee, CA, Trend Micro, etc. have to rid the world of malware?" They don't have any! If they stopped malware at the source, that will put them out of business and they don't want that.

Microsoft, on the other hand, has huge incentives to rid the world of malware because they keep getting blamed for the security situation we are in today - even though it is the badguys (to include corrupt ISPs and 3rd world government leaders) who put us here.

It is not possible to rid the world of malware. Malware cannot be stopped "at the source" any more than any other kind of criminal behavior. It is a problem inherent in human nature and neither governments nor private companies will ever eliminate it completely. There's plenty of incentive for anti-malware companies to try as hard as they can to minimize malware though, and that's to make money.

Victek

Malware could be stopped at the source.. if domains that serve it were forced to shut down until they can prove they're no longer serving it. But the point of NIS and any other internet security suite is to stop infections before they get into your computer.. and NIS just doesn't do a very good job at that. I have seen the proof of it numerous times in infected HDDs that I've cleaned for my friends. NIS doesn't warn you about infections it detects but can't stop. And nothing can warn you about infections it can't detect.

Guest

Features like anti-phishing, anti- ...everything seem to be aimed at the first time web user. If you have ANY sort of experience you will know what a phishing website or email is. And when not to give your information out. I see no need to install hundreds of MB's for what is easily solved by common sense. For example, Keep your system up to date with the latest patches, don't visit or give information to dodgy websites or emails etc etc.

This computer of mine came with Norton 2010 suite installed by default. I immediately removed it and installed MSE.

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

�� Quote: Originally Posted by tw33k

Yeah, earlier versions left a bad taste in some people's mouths (I being one of them).

Same here. Norton Internet Security 2009 allowed Malware into my computer and kept it a secret until another security program alerted me to the infection and it was removed. Just a note according to Sysinternals Process Explorer NIS 2009 used over 300 MB of RAM while it was on my computer since then I have installed much more sophisticated and comprehensive free computer security protection that Windows Task Manager reports as using just 5.2 MB of RAM. I'll let the reader decide whether NIS is bloated or not.

~Maxx~
.

Guest

�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot

Malware could be stopped at the source.. if domains that serve it were forced to shut down until they can prove they're no longer serving it. But the point of NIS and any other internet security suite is to stop infections before they get into your computer.. and NIS just doesn't do a very good job at that. I have seen the proof of it numerous times in infected HDDs that I've cleaned for my friends. NIS doesn't warn you about infections it detects but can't stop. And nothing can warn you about infections it can't detect.

Your statement roughly translates as "if the world were a better place there wouldn't be malware". I agree, but it isn't yet. Malware could be significantly minimized if governments would create and support international law with regard to cyber-crime, but that level of cooperation does not exist yet in the international community.

Regarding NIS let's agree to talk about only the 2010/2011 products which have much more sophisticated technology. There's no point in referring to the problems and limitations of older versions, all of which have been addressed in 2010/2011. I've personally not experienced NIS detecting an infection and then not producing a warning if it can't remove it. I would be interested in seeing examples of this. More generally I don't believe that any security suite is perfect. Regardless of which product is used I recommend Prevx for a real-time second opinion. Prevx can be used for free for improved detection.

Do you believe there are other suites that do a better job than NIS? I've had experience with the latest versions of McAfee, Trend Micro and Panda. They were much heavier on resources which made them unacceptable for older computers.

Victek

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Rei Tumult

Features like anti-phishing, anti- ...everything seem to be aimed at the first time web user. If you have ANY sort of experience you will know what a phishing website or email is. And when not to give your information out. I see no need to install hundreds of MB's for what is easily solved by common sense. For example, Keep your system up to date with the latest patches, don't visit or give information to dodgy websites or emails etc etc.

This computer of mine came with Norton 2010 suite installed by default. I immediately removed it and installed MSE.

You're correct - if the majority of users were more aware of how to minimize risk there would be less need for the extra layers of protection that suites provide, but they're not. Most users need all the automatic protection they can get, especially if they have children using computers. That's just the way it is. You have to keep in mind that what is obvious to you is only true for a very small percentage of users. You and I are among the rocket scientists of security - scary, isn't it?

madtownidiot

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Victek

Malware cannot be stopped "at the source" any more than any other kind of criminal behavior.

I disagree. Just as with every other kind of criminal behavior, if there were no laws, enforcement of those laws, or incentives not to break those laws (getting caught, jail, fines, execution) then criminal activity would be rampant and anarchy would ensue.

Of course total, 100% criminal behavior cannot be stopped. But when there is ZERO effort to stop spam, spyware, and malicious code at the source, it becomes the free-for-all that it is.

Even in law abiding countries, most ISPs do nothing to stop anyone from uploading malware. They may stop someone from sending a thousand emails at once, but then that's why badguys use 1000s of compromised computers, so they can send just 10 infected emails at once from each computer, and fly under the RADAR. If ISPs scanned for malicious code at the source, much would be stopped.

P2P and torrent sites that condone and support illegal filesharing are a major source of malware. These sites know illegal filesharing is taking place, but turn a blind eye to it. Badguys know that no one is watching and have a heyday. These site are often the launching site for new, yet undetectable, malware.

Quote:

Malware could be significantly minimized if governments would create and support international law with regard to cyber-crime, but that level of cooperation does not exist yet in the international community.

Exactly, but there are already plenty of existing laws on the books right now that all UN member countries, by being members, have agreed to enforce. But sadly, many don't. They have corrupt government officials watching over corrupt ISPs who turn a blind eye to the badguys. If those countries made even a small effort to enforce those existing laws, it would make a huge impact on what gets distributed on the Internet. And in many law abiding countries, the US for example, our elected officials have not provided law enforcement the resources ($$$) to enforce the laws. Of course, that typically requires raising taxes which most taxpayers balk at. I say, see the 2nd line in my sig.

Also note that in some cases (Iran, North Korea, China) it is the government who are the badguys and who are intentionally distributing malware, DDoS attacks, and other illegal activities. But again, this malicious code is being routed over "friendly" satellites, and transcontinental and oceanic cables owned, operated and regulated by companies in, or by UN member countries.

The big telecommunications carriers who provide the big backbone support around the world do NOTHING to stop the malware. Current estimates show in excess of 90% of the email traffic on the Internet is spam. The big carriers have no incentive to stop spam, they would much rather sell you more bandwidth.

Quote:

There's plenty of incentive for anti-malware companies to try as hard as they can to minimize malware though, and that's to make money.

Oh? Then why don't they? They don't! The anti-malware companies need malware to thrive, so the threat remains ever constant so user buy their products. They are not trying to stop or even minimize the proliferation or distribution of malware. They are just trying to prevent it from infecting your machine so you don't switch to a competitor.

That's why free products like MSE and Windows Firewall are so important. MS does have an incentive to rid the world of malware.

Victek

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Victek

Your statement roughly translates as "if the world were a better place there wouldn't be malware". I agree, but it isn't yet. Malware could be significantly minimized if governments would create and support international law with regard to cyber-crime, but that level of cooperation does not exist yet in the international community.

My statement refers to the fact that legislation already exists that could be used to block malware at the source by taking down the offending sites but is not being enforced or used effectively.. IE the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984 could be used to prosecute malware servers in the US and block traffic from malware servers outside of the US, by warning ISPs they are aiding and abetting a felony by allowing traffic from the offending ip addresses
I'm also referring to the fact that the current administration is completely focused on protecting the profits of large corporations instead of the people who voted for them

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Victek

Regarding NIS let's agree to talk about only the 2010/2011 products which have much more sophisticated technology. There's no point in referring to the problems and limitations of older versions, all of which have been addressed in 2010/2011. I've personally not experienced NIS detecting an infection and then not producing a warning if it can't remove it. I would be interested in seeing examples of this. More generally I don't believe that any security suite is perfect. Regardless of which product is used I recommend Prevx for a real-time second opinion. Prevx can be used for free for improved detection..

I am in fact referring to NIS 2010/2011, which is pretty useless against rogue AVs. source.
I have removed rogue av infections from several computers that had NIS 2010 installed. You are correct that no security suite is perfect, and I am a little biased against Norton, mainly because of their history and the scareware tactics they've resorted to in the past few months

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Victek

Do you believe there are other suites that do a better job than NIS? I've had experience with the latest versions of McAfee, Trend Micro and Panda. They were much heavier on resources which made them unacceptable for older computers.

Here's a test that proves comodo internet security is more effective at blocking infections than than the paid verson of NIS
Attachment 105437

Victek

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Digerati

Also note that in some cases (Iran, North Korea, China) it is the government who are the badguys and who are intentionally distributing malware, DDoS attacks, and other illegal activities. But again, this malicious code is being routed over "friendly" satellites, and transcontinental and oceanic cables owned, operated and regulated by companies in, or by UN member countries.

The anti-malware companies need malware to thrive, so the threat remains ever constant so user buy their products. They are not trying to stop or even minimize the proliferation or distribution of malware. They are just trying to prevent it from infecting your machine so you don't switch to a competitor.

That's why free products like MSE and Windows Firewall are so important. MS does have an incentive to rid the world of malware.

Well, I agree with most everything you've said. Regarding governments being bad guys, I would add that it seems unlikely the western democracies are blame-free. Everyone is exploring cyber-warfare.

Of course the anti-malware companies need malware to thrive, but is it really their responsibility to try and stop the distribution? It seems to me this has to happen at the level of government and law-enforcement. What could the anti-malware companies do (assuming they were motivated)...?

Victek

�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot

My statement refers to the fact that legislation already exists that could be used to block malware at the source by taking down the offending sites but is not being enforced or used effectively.. IE the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984 could be used to prosecute malware servers in the US and block traffic from malware servers outside of the US, by warning ISPs they are aiding and abetting a felony by allowing traffic from the offending ip addresses.

I am in fact referring to NIS 2010/2011, which is pretty useless against rogue AVs. source.

I have removed rogue av infections from several computers that had NIS 2010 installed. You are correct that no security suite is perfect, and I am a little biased against Norton, mainly because of their history and the scareware tactics they've resorted to in the past few months

Here's a test that proves comodo internet security is more effective at blocking infections than than the paid verson of NIS
Attachment 105437

I don't doubt what you say about the existing law. I don't know why the government can't do a better job of enforcement. I don't see how it benefits corporations to allow malware to proliferate.

Regarding rogue AVs, all the major suites seem to have trouble detecting and removing them. I don't know why that is. Since vendors with considerably less resouces, for instance MBAM and SuperAntiSpyware, can remove them it doesn't make sense that the suites cannot.

You may be correct that CIS is more effective than NIS at blocking infections, but does it require users to respond to pop-ups to be successful? If so then on the computers of average users it will fail.

madtownidiot

Quote:

I would add that it seems unlikely the western democracies are blame-free.

I was not implying that. In fact, I singled out my country, the US, for not doing enough. WE THE PEOPLE, need to force our elected officials to fund enforcement of existing laws, and push our representatives in the UN to do the same. At the same time, we have to be ready to pay for it.

madtownidiot

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Digerati

Quote:

I would add that it seems unlikely the western democracies are blame-free.

I was not implying that. In fact, I singled out my country, the US, for not doing enough. WE THE PEOPLE, need to force our elected officials to fund enforcement of existing laws, and push our representatives in the UN to do the same. At the same time, we have to be ready to pay for it.

Amen to that. Now if we could just figure out how to make it happen...

By the way, what was the topic of this thread...?

Guest

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Victek

I don't doubt what you say about the existing law. I don't know why the government can't do a better job of enforcement. I don't see how it benefits corporations to allow malware to proliferate.

Regarding rogue AVs, all the major suites seem to have trouble detecting and removing them. I don't know why that is. Since vendors with considerably less resouces, for instance MBAM and SuperAntiSpyware, can remove them it doesn't make sense that the suites cannot.

You may be correct that CIS is more effective than NIS at blocking infections, but does it require users to respond to pop-ups to be successful? If so then on the computers of average users it will fail.

I could think of one possible reason computer manfacturers and security software companies benefit by allowing malware to proliferate...
As to the rogue AV question.. I don't really know why .. CIS and Malwarebytes' full version block them pretty effectively
CIS doesn't require any response to pop ups once it's configured. In fact, once it's installed, updates and set to safe mode after a full scan is completed, it almost never pops up. If you set it up correctly, it will allow whitelisted applications to be installed and run but automatically block anything it doesn't recognize until the cloud scanner determines whether it is safe, with no user actions required.
My problem with most other AV suites (besides the fact they don't work very well against new types of threats) is that the UIs have generally been moron-proofed to the point where it's impossible to shut them off completely when needed, or to make exceptions to stop the AV from attacking one-off drivers and applications.. or to make them work well with programs like malwarebytes with RT scanning and website blocking enabled.. which would be an extremely effective combination if you could get the AV suite to cooperate.

Guest

Quote:

I could think of one possible reason computer manfacturers and security software companies benefit by allowing malware to proliferate...

Computer manufacturers? Ummm, I don't see them benefiting much, unless they sell big routers and other hardware used by the big telecommunications carriers. As noted earlier, they would rather sell bigger pipes (more bandwidth) instead of freeing up bandwidth by preventing it in the first place.

Guest

Computer manufacturers & Microsoft... some version of "I'm a PC and windows 7 was my idea".. in reference to how much more secure windows 7 is compared to previous version

CarlTR6

Quote:

Computer manufacturers & Microsoft...

Huh? That makes no sense at all to me. It sounds like something Microsoft bashers would use. I am sorry, but it appears you are not following this conversation. PC makers don't profit from malware. And as I noted before, Microsoft has NO incentive to let malware proliferate. Why? Because Microsoft bashers and the biased IT press already blame Microsoft for the security mess we are in even though it is the badguys, not Microsoft, that put us here. Microsoft does not sell security programs so again, they don't profit from it. In fact, the security situation, again fueled by bashers, have led many users to flock to Linux, Firefox and other alternatives to Microsoft products.

And the very fact Windows 7 is more secure is an indication Microsoft does take security seriously. Also, the improved security of IE8 and now IE9 - plus the improved Windows Firewall, and the free Microsoft Security Essentials all demonstrate Microsoft's anti-malware efforts.

Just as it is no longer appropriate to blame the current version of NIS for the sins of previous versions, we cannot blame Microsoft, or PC makers for the security situation badguys put us in.

madtownidiot

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Digerati

Quote:

Computer manufacturers & Microsoft...

Huh? That makes no sense at all to me. It sounds like something Microsoft bashers would use. I am sorry, but it appears you are not following this conversation. PC makers don't profit from malware. And as I noted before, Microsoft has NO incentive to let malware proliferate. Why? Because Microsoft bashers and the biased IT press already blame Microsoft for the security mess we are in even though it is the badguys, not Microsoft, that put us here. Microsoft does not sell security programs so again, they don't profit from it. In fact, the security situation, again fueled by bashers, have led many users to flock to Linux, Firefox and other alternatives to Microsoft products.

And the very fact Windows 7 is more secure is an indication Microsoft does take security seriously. Also, the improved security of IE8 and now IE9 - plus the improved Windows Firewall, and the free Microsoft Security Essentials all demonstrate Microsoft's anti-malware efforts.

Just as it is no longer appropriate to blame the current version of NIS for the sins of previous versions, we cannot blame Microsoft, or PC makers for the security situation badguys put us in.

Very well stated, Bill.

Maxxwire

I'm not bashing microsoft. It's not bashing something to make a statement based in facts. I thoroughly enjoy using microsoft products, and I have spent about $18000 on windows 7 30-packs so far this year to upgrade used but relatively new computers to windows 7 for resale, and for installation in computers I've built myself, but some of microsoft's business practices are less than honorable to say the least.. and my experience with people in general is they don't change. They may apologize for wrongdoing when they get caught and even stop for a while, but when somebody gets away with something more than once.. they're going to find another way to do it again after they get caught.
Microsoft, computer manufacturers, and internet security software companies have plenty of incentive to allow malware to proliferate.. for Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, and computer manufacturers.. every new, more inherently secure computer means a new windows license and a new subscription to the security software that is almost always manditorily preloaded.. for companies like Symantec.. it's also matter of survival, if they ever created a product that didn't allow new, unrecognized malicious software to enter the system, nobody would ever need to buy their newest version.
Now if you want to stick your head in the mud and ignore reality that is your choice, but the facts remain

madtownidiot

Quote:

It's not bashing something to make a statement based in facts.

Okay, What are the facts then? You have stated none that are applicable or valid.

Quote:

for Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, and computer manufacturers.. every new, more inherently secure computer means a new windows license and a new subscription to the security software that is almost always manditorily preloaded..

No! That is simply wrong - totally invalid! New windows license? What does that have to do with security? You are just bashing! The fact a new computer needs a new Windows license has absolutely nothing to do with security, malware, or subscriptions to security software. And neither does Microsoft's past lousy (I agree with your there) business practices. I am sorry, but you are simply bashing Microsoft for bashing's sake. You are making connections where no connections are warranted. As a clear example of your biases, the fully capable MSE is totally free.

My head is not buried in the sand. I'm standing tall and my eyes are wide open and looking around at today's security environment.

Don't get me wrong - I have and will bash Microsoft again - when due! Their strong armed marketing practices of the past are something I, as long time builder and supplier of custom built PCs, have complained about plenty, on forums like this, and to Microsoft. But Microsoft has made a turnaround in terms of their stance on security since unjustly enduring over 10 years of bashing for XP. And I say unjust because it was. XP was designed to support insecure, legacy, DOS era hardware and software because users (mostly corporate) insisted it should as they did not want to have to pay to retool again, as they did with Win95. Microsoft started this turnaround with XP SP3. Then the purchase of Giant Antispyware (renamed to Windows Defender), which they then gave away free. Then IE7, 8, and now 9, continue to increase security. Windows Firewall is an excellent firewall, and free. And again MSE has continued to garner excellent test results and is free too.

Once again, Microsoft does not sell anti-malware software. They see no benefit when a computer gets infected. You are 100% right about Symantec and McAfee, but you cannot lump Microsoft with them. They are totally different entities.

Maxxwire

�� Quote: Originally Posted by malexous

It's 2010 and the 2011 version of Norton is released...

Uses about 10MB on my machine. Doesn't seem bloated to me.

Please don't be offended, but as a former Norton user I'd really enjoy seeing a screenshot
of Task Manager showing all the instances of NIS 2011 totaling 10 MB RAM.

~Maxx~
.

madtownidiot

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

�� Quote: Originally Posted by malexous

It's 2010 and the 2011 version of Norton is released...

Uses about 10MB on my machine. Doesn't seem bloated to me.

Please don't be offended, but as a former Norton user I'd really enjoy seeing a screenshot
of Task Manager showing all the instances of NIS 2011 totaling 10 MB RAM.

~Maxx~
.

just for comparison purposes...
Here's a screenshot of CIS 5.0 immediately after startup
Attachment 105516
and one after the initial scan for updates is complete
Attachment 105517
on a dell xt-2 with 2GB RAM running 7 ultimate..other systems might use more or less memory

yowanvista

Since I run my browser in the virtual space of Sandboxie which acts like a Malware jail I just have the Comodo Firewall and Defense+ installed which as you can see requires only 5.2 MB of RAM instead of the 8.94 MB of RAM the full CIS Suite runs for on your computer.

Before Sandboxie put the Comodo AV out of business on my computer by trapping Malware before affect the computer I ran the whole CIS Suite and I am quite familiar with the huge amount of system resources that are required to do an AV definitions update.

~Maxx~
.

madtownidiot

very interesting idea.. I tried it using the comodo sandbox and it works.. even lets me upload pics..
Attachment 105573Attachment 105574

Guest

�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot

very interesting idea.. I tried it using the comodo sandbox and it works.. even lets me upload pics..
Attachment 105573Attachment 105574

Seems comodo is doing a good job too

Guest

been trying to find some malware sites.. to test that too

Maxxwire

�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot

very interesting idea.. I tried it using the comodo sandbox and it works.. even lets me upload pics..
Attachment 105573Attachment 105574

The main difference between the Comodo Sandbox and Sandboxie is that Sandboxie lets you program in special file paths for things like new bookmarks and passwords so that when the browser comes out of the Sandbox it retains that information in its app data files.

I tried using my browser in the Comodo Sandbox and it operates just fine, but when the browser comes out of the Comodo Sandbox its app data files are exactly the same as when it went into the Comodo Sandbox.

~Maxx~
.

malexous

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

�� Quote: Originally Posted by malexous

It's 2010 and the 2011 version of Norton is released...

Uses about 10MB on my machine. Doesn't seem bloated to me.

Please don't be offended, but as a former Norton user I'd really enjoy seeing a screenshot
of Task Manager showing all the instances of NIS 2011 totaling 10 MB RAM.

~Maxx~
.

This was taken on September 10 after surfing in Firefox with 11 tabs open and downloading large files for half an hour.

8.4MB



Edit: Anyway, unless you have less than 1GB RAM, it isn't going to make much of a difference on the computer performance. Half an hour isn't long enough for a proper measure but if you look at the CPU Time, I/O Reads and I/O Writes, you can get a sense of the low numbers I see when I measure them for longer.

madtownidiot

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

I tried using my browser in the Comodo Sandbox and it operates just fine, but when the browser comes out of the Comodo Sandbox its app data files are exactly the same as when it went into the Comodo Sandbox.

~Maxx~
.

That's exactly what I want to happen.. a perfect way to stop a browser from slowing down over time

Maxxwire

�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot

That's exactly what I want to happen..

Its also a very safe way to surf the Internet although you are prevented from downloading programs or anything else to the computer while the browser is in the Comodo Sandbox where as Sandboxie allows user authorized downloads. My preference is to scan programs with Virus Total before downloading them from the virtual space of Sandboxie into the 'real' computer.

~Maxx~
.

madtownidiot

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot

That's exactly what I want to happen..

Its also a very safe way to surf the Internet although you are prevented from downloading programs or anything else to the computer while the browser is in the Comodo Sandbox where as Sandboxie allows user authorized downloads. My preference is to scan programs with Virus Total before downloading them from the virtual space of Sandboxie into the 'real' computer.

~Maxx~
.

What I have done is set firefox to be automatically sandboxed as limited, and anytime I want to download something, I just open up IE and download it from there

Maxxwire

�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot

[What I have done is set firefox to be automatically sandboxed as limited, and anytime I want to download something, I just open up IE and download it from there

You are not leaving your AV with a whole lot to do in fact if your computer is by itself and not on a LAN your AV won't have a thing to do as long as you use Virus Total or an on demand scanner to check everything you download from the Internet.

~Maxx~
.

malexous

�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot

I am in fact referring to NIS 2010/2011, which is pretty useless against rogue AVs. source.
I have removed rogue av infections from several computers that had NIS 2010

I fail to see how that shows that Norton is useless against rogue AVs.

Norton 2011 performs much better than 2010 against rogues and their scripts in my (insignificant?) tests.

Maxxwire

�� Quote: Originally Posted by malexous

I fail to see how that shows that Norton is useless against rogue AVs.

He is referring to the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge where Norton 2010 only got a 40% score and not recommended status...



Soon we will know how Norton 2011 does in the rigerous 148 security tests that Matousec administers hopefully it will be able to pass more than 59 by then.

~Maxx~
.

malexous

What part of Matousec tests rogues?

For anyone that hasn't read my post, don't pay attention to Matousec results regarding products like Look 'n' Stop and Mamutu except to realise that they don't contain HIPS. http://www.sevenforums.com/1025206-post40.html

Also, Norton was tested only in 6/10 tests/levels.

Guest

I have a problem with this rogue issue too. I mean why would you be installing another AV program if you already have NIS?

I also have a problem with Matousec's testing methodology. They test using a 10 year-old operating system that was designed to support DOS-era hardware. Why not test with Windows 7?

They don't include Windows Firewall or MSE? Why not? If nothing else, they provide a baseline although actually, since migrating my systems to Win7, I use both and see no reason to change that.

Also, they say they don't test "dead" products but they have Sunbelt Personal Firewall listed but as you can plainly see, it does not support Windows 7 and is 32-bit only. That's dead, IMO.

Finally, I never rely on one review. And when recommending security app to my clients, I advise them to review these testing sites:

• ICSA Labs
• WestCoast Labs
• AV-Test

malexous

Digerati, I don't think you should underestimate human ignorance. Also, rogues sometimes get installed through drive-by downloads which, if nothing else, is a nuisance.

AV-Test.org are releasing results of a test performed on Windows XP next week. At least, with tests using real malware, I don't mind testing performed on Windows XP as the tests are meant for the anti-virus program and not Windows. Most Windows users still use XP.

codyw

I don't. I have always said that the user is the always the weakest link.

Maxxwire

I am more of a fan of Norton's consumer products more than I am a fan of their corporate products. When a client calls me asking what AV is good for home or commercial I usually recommend Norton IS just because the corporate software through Symantec, Endpoint Protection, isn't very effective. I have watched a few videos on YouTube and the person showing how Endpoint worked in a "real world situation" threw threats at it. The latest video done on Endpoint failed miserably. I've been using NIS 2011 since the final version came out and no problems, no infections! I am happy to say so far 2 organizations have benefited from Norton on my account and no complaints!

malexous

Quote:

When a client calls me asking what AV is good for home or commercial I usually recommend Norton IS

Well, I rarely recommend a product that will cost my clients money when there are fully capable free alternatives available. And NIS not only costs upfront, but has regular recurring/renewal fees as well.

Now some products are only free for home and non-commercial use. Avast! for example. So care must be taken when recommending them.

malexous

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Digerati

Finally, I never rely on one review. And when recommending security app to my clients, I advise them to review these testing sites:

• ICSA Labs
• WestCoast Labs
• AV-Test

It is estimated that over 40,000 new pieces of Malware are released onto the Internet every day around the world and relying on the definitions to be released for an antiquated blacklist Antivirus software to protect your computer even the best rated AV will be completely unaware of these Zero Day Malware.

This is why Norton fails so miserably on the 148 Matousec Tests. Just because Norton does not have State of the Art multi-level default deny protection that can detect Zero Day Malware does not mean the test is unfair.

I didn't understand this either until after Norton 2009 let Malware onto my computer without detecting it and then the deficiencies of its 20th century definitions based Antivirus became crystal clear!

~Maxx~
.

Maxxwire

As has already been mentioned (possibly in another thread), the technologies in Norton 2011 is much more advanced than in Norton 2009.

To protect against "zero day" malware Norton Antivirus 2011 uses IPS, SONAR3 (behaviour blocker), heuristics and a reputation system containing nearly two billion files.

Maxxwire

The best way to avoid Zero Day malware is to avoid risky practices - that is, do not participate in illegal filesharing at P2P sites or via torrents, do not visit illegal porn or gambling sites, and do not follow links in unsolicited emails or chat sites for these are all sites and activities bad guys wallow in, and where they release their brand new malicious code. Why? Because they know careless users will be there and that many of these sites are not monitored for illegal activity.

So again, it is up to the user to "practice safe computing".

Guest

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

This is why Norton fails so miserably on the 148 Matousec Tests.

Norton 2010 was tested against 85/148 tests.

Guest

�� Quote: Originally Posted by malexous

To protect against "zero day" malware Norton Antivirus 2011 uses IPS, SONAR3 (behaviour blocker), heuristics and a reputation system containing nearly two billion files.

That's all well and good and yet Norton fails the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge on an ongoing basis with 40% passing while several more advanced Security Suites do much better on the 148 tests with several in the 90% range and one even scoring 100%. Use Norton if you want, but I and an additional 1,000,000+ more people each month prefer the freeware with the perfect score. The days of charging billion$ of dollar$ a year for $ubstandard computer $ecurity are waning...

~Maxx~
.

Guest

�� Quote: Originally Posted by malexous

Norton 2010 was tested against 85/148 tests.

Webroot, Zone Alarm, Avira and others were tested on only 84 tests, but the report shows Norton passed 40% of 148 tests on the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge.

~Maxx~
.

malexous

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

several more advanced Security Suites do much better on the 148 tests with several in the 90% range and one even scoring 100%.

And some of those fail to detect malware that Norton detects when real samples are used.

You can look at simulators (Matousec, leaktests) or you can look at real malware (AV-Comparatives.org, AV-Test.org, etc.)

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

Webroot, Zone Alarm, Avira and others were tested on only 84 tests, but the report shows Norton passed 40% of 148 tests on the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge.

Look at the .pdf for Norton.

Maxxwire

�� Quote: Originally Posted by malexous

And some of those fail to detect malware that Norton detects when real samples are used.

Is that why Norton is the only Security Suite that ever completely failed at detection and let Malware into my computer? Obviously you have no idea what its like to be betrayed by Norton. I went looking for real preventative protection and instead of outdated after the infection detection and removal and stepped up to Sandboxie and a top testing Firewall and HIPS and I haven't detected a piece of Malware on my computer since not even so much as a tracking cookie with my browser running in the virtual space of Sandboxie...



~Maxx~
.

malexous

Sandboxie is one software we both use (I only use it on special occasions now) and recommend...

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

Is that why Norton is the only Security Suite that ever completely failed at detection and let Malware into my computer?

How many have you tried and how do you know most of them wouldn't have failed with the same infection?

What did you use to detect the infection?

Maxxwire

�� Quote: Originally Posted by malexous

How many have you tried and how do you know most of them wouldn't have failed with the same infection? What did you use to detect the infection?

Don't try to cover for Norton. Norton failed my computer plain and simple. The Malware that Norton let into my computer was quite common as it was detected by another program on the computer at the time. Norton failed to protect my computer and the Malware was detected and named by another security software much to the embarrassment of Norton.

After I uninstalled Norton and cleaned up the mess it left I installed Sandboxie which puts the aging Antivirus technology out of business because Malware can be destroyed from within the virtual space of Sandboxie where it can not harm the computer and the only use aging and outmoded Antivirus technology has is providing the name of the Malware that is to be destroyed in the virtual sandbox.

~Maxx~
.

malexous

Norton has never failed our computers. Detected many things back in the day and continues to protect my sister... the type that needs all the help they can get.

Whatever security software detected it most likely has failed many times too.

I'm not trying to cover up for Norton. I've watched it fail in my tests just like every other anti-virus and almost all other security products. Nothing can guarantee 100% protection. Not even the top scorers on Matousec.

malexous

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

Norton failed my computer plain and simple. The Malware that Norton let into my computer was quite common as it was detected by another program on the computer at the time.

Every security software in the world has missed malware that another has detected. We're talking about one
infection from 1-2 years ago and a product from 1-2 years ago.

Maxxwire

[QUOTE=malexous;1046877]

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

Every security software in the world has missed malware that another has detected. We're talking about one
infection from 1-2 years ago and a product from 1-2 years ago.

Why are you making excuses for Norton's failure? Only one Security Suite has failed my computer and that was Norton. No other Security software has ever failed on any of my computers...just Norton.

~Maxx~
.

Maxxwire

�� Quote: Originally Posted by malexous

Whatever security software detected it most likely has failed many times too.

I'm not trying to cover up for Norton. I've watched it fail in my tests just like every other anti-virus and almost all other security products. Nothing can guarantee 100% protection. Not even the top scorers on Matousec.

No, don't try to blame the other security software that embarrassed Norton by catching the Malware that Horton let on to my computer undetected only Norton failed on my computer the other computer security program never failed...only Norton failed!

Don't get antiquated Antivirus software which does fail often because it relies on a definitions blacklist confused with the multi-layered computer security of the top scorers on the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge which use State of the Art Automatic Sandboxing of unrecognized programs, HIPS which can detect zero-day Malware which an Antivirus can't along with Cloud Based Malware scanning and Cloud Based Behavior Blocking which garner them scores 500% higher than Norton.

How ironic that a rag tag group of volunteer computer security programmers could write security software that consistently tests 250% more effective in 148 security challenges than the multi-billion dollar $ymantec corporation could afford to buy and then run into the ground like they did with the PC Tools Firewall Plus that was at the very top of the Matousec test results before $ymantec bought them out and now PC Tools ranks 12th just above $ymantec's Norton Internet $ecurity.

~Maxx~
.

malexous

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

500% higher than Norton.

I suppose you have proof?

How am I blaming other security software? The other security program never failed you. Doesn't mean it never fails. What is the security program you speak of?

"Don't get antiquated Antivirus software which does fail often"

Then start posting the same in other threads where MSE, Avast! etc. are being discussed/recommended. Norton catches malware they don't (and vice versa). (e.g. AV-Test.org � Tests of Anti-Virus- and Security-Software)

codyw

I was completely unaware of all Norton's failures. I do know that some products struggle when it comes to dealing with rogue AV's just because they can burry themselves deep in your system. I used Norton 2010 last year and part of this year before upgrading to the 2011 version and have not had an invasion yet. One of my clients had an invasion while using Norton 2010 (and they still are) and Norton blocked both attacks with nothing let in. I have watched tests on YouTube on the 2010 and 2011 versions and they all seemed to be about the same. I did notice that Trend Micro didn't get the best overall rating on some tests though...

Maxxwire

�� Quote: Originally Posted by malexous

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

500% higher than Norton.

I suppose you have proof?

Its not just about the Antivirus its about how the entire security suite tests. In the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge results Norton scored 40% and the best score was Comodo at 100%. Simple math tells us that a 100% score is 2.5 times higher than a 40% score which is a 250% better score. Its not that Comodo is 2.5X better than Norton its just that Norton does not have the State of the Art zero-day security features to be able to test along side Online Armor, Malware Defender, Kaspersky and Comodo in the rigorous 148 part Matousec tests to thwart all of the simulated exploits included in the tests. This is very important because these days hackers know that with the proliferation of Antivirus software a well executed exploit can help them to gain control of more computers because so many computers have little or no defense against exploits as is revealed in the 148 Matousec Test tesults.

It is quite clear that you are very happy with Norton 2011. Unfortunately I had a bad experience and got infected while using Norton 2009 so I can hope that you can understand why I took the most extreme measures I could find to make sure that my computers don't get infected again. So far I haven't been infected since I began using Sandboxie and Comodo and I am glad of that.

We each do what we can to keep our computers free of Malware and I hope that Norton continues to keep your computer free of Malware as it has been up until now. BTW- Do you use your browser in Sandboxie on a regular basis?

~Maxx~
.

codyw

Quote:

Simple math tells us that a 100% score is 5 times higher than a 40% score.

Huh? In what universe is that? In this universe, simple math says that 40 x 2.5 = 100.

malexous

Get ready for a long post to read...

I have a question about cloud based antivirus! Is it better than the traditional where the traditional keeps everything on the host computer or is it better where everything is in the cloud? The following AV's have failed me while I used them:

• Kaspersky AV and IS
• McAfee IS

I have "looked at" Norton IS 2009 because it came with my Win7 laptop but I upgraded to the 2010 because I already had a license and because "usually" when you upgrade to the next version it has better protection and enhancements to protect you. I have watched all videos on Norton 2010 and 2011 where users have thrown threats at them. The FINAL version of NIS 2011 passed with nothing getting past. Norton 2010 passed in "some" videos while others it let one rogue AV in and I forget what else. The fact is, the AV's that burned me making me wipe and start over I will never go to again.

With Kaspersky, there were infections throughout my laptop and backup drive that Norton caught when I started using it. I was floored to see so much malware!
With McAfee, there were 2 hidden Trojans on my computer that in every scan I ran with it, never found. Norton picked them up with no problem as well. So, not only was my backup drive completely infected but so was my computer itself. Not only did I get them cleaned up with Norton but I also had to reformat my backup drive, and wipe my Win7 machine. It was a mess!!! The average user nowadays shouldn't have to worry whether their security software is going to fail them within a day's time. I agree with Maxxwire, in this day in age, hackers are working to see where there are holes they can exploit their evil doings and they take advantage of every vulnerability they can possibly find. That's why it's important to have an AV that:

• Can stand up to the competition
• Has a good detection rate
• Can detect and block hackers
• Has tool that tells you whether sites you are about to view are safe or not

Good surfing habits are also good just because if you use an antivirus, not internet security, you only have minimal tools to stay protected. Most antivirus packages do not include firewalls, anti-spam filtration, browser protection, and whatever else companies out there have. For the average user who doesn't get a lot of spam, isn't worried about hackers getting into their systems, or worried about hijackers, antivirus packages are the best suited for them. Where as me, I get a lot of spam (maybe too much), I do web design, I do a little bit of surfing, I do a lot of emailing, and more so anti-spam filtration, firewalls will do me well (providing that they are working). Norton 2010 and 2011 is always giving me an indication it's working because when the computer is idle for so long, it will display a small box at the right corner of the screen saying it's either doing a Full System Scan during the week, or it's performing other background tasks. I didn't see that with Kaspersky and definitely got no alerts from McAfee. I have never used Trend Micro so I don't know what their products include or entail.

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

�� Quote: Originally Posted by malexous

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

500% higher than Norton.

I suppose you have proof?

Its not just about the Antivirus its about how the entire security suite tests. In the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge results Norton scored 40% and the best score was Comodo at 100%. Simple math tells us that a 100% score is 5 times higher than a 40% score. Its not that Comodo is 5X better than Norton its just that Norton does not have the State of the Art zero-day security features to be able to test along side Online Armor, Malware Defender, Kaspersky and Comodo in the rigorous 148 part Matousec tests to thwart all of the simulated exploits included in the tests. This is very important because these days hackers know that with the proliferation of Antivirus software a well executed exploit can help them to gain control of more computers because so many computers have little or no defense against exploits as is revealed in the 148 Matousec Test tesults.

It is quite clear that you are very happy with Norton 2011. Unfortunately I had a bad experience and got infected while using Norton 2009 so I can hope that you can understand why I took the most extreme measures I could find to make sure that my computers don't get infected again. So far I haven't been infected since I began using Sandboxie and Comodo and I am glad of that.

We each do what we can to keep our computers free of Malware and I hope that Norton continues to keep your computer free of Malware as it has been up until now. BTW- Do you use your browser in Sandboxie on a regular basis?

~Maxx~
.

codyw

codyw, we should all know that anti-virus won't catch everything and there is no "best". That's why we should all use a layered security approach which could include an anti-malware on-demand.

Norton scores well in most real-world tests and is often at the top.

[The above (and below) was typed before reading your last post]

-

There is only one software scoring above 90% on Matousec that has been included in numerous real-world tests containing real malware and released to the public and Norton always scores the same or better than it.

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

Do you use your browser in Sandboxie on a regular basis?

We used to while running without real-time anti-virus (not recommended!) but because I currently have to share a computer, it doesn't suit the way I want the PC set-up. It's only used now when I want to do something without it making any changes to the computer such as testing software.

kuliddar

With all the clients that I have dealt with, both residential and commercial, they tell me the problem, I suggest the resolution, and they let me get to work. However, with all the people I have recommended Norton to, residential and commercial, NO ONE has had a complaint about it. When I was recommending Kaspersky, I had a couple of complaints about system slowdowns, which of course, every AV slows down a machine in some way or another, but I haven't gotten any complains thus far about Norton and 2 organizations have benefited from Norton so far from me. As long as they keep showing they are serious about protecting their existing customers and customers to come they should be OK in the long run. One of my clients now uses McAfee, and she is always complaining about something weird going on with her machine. She has been hit with everything from viruses to spyware, you name it! Instead of her switching now to Norton, she's waiting till her subscription ends with McAfee some time in January before she switches. So it just depends on what company you go with to see how their products work and how effective they are. When I first started out, I did research on Google, read endless forum posts, and watched videos on the software to see how well it performed in a "real world environment". That definitely helped too!

�� Quote: Originally Posted by malexous

codyw, we should all know that anti-virus won't catch everything and there is no "best". That's why we should all use a layered security approach which could include an anti-malware on-demand.

Norton scores well in most real-world tests and is often at the top.

[The above was typed before reading your last post]

-

There is only one software scoring above 90% on Matousec that has been included in numerous real-world tests containing real malware and released to the public and Norton always scores the same or better than it.

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

Do you use your browser in Sandboxie on a regular basis?

We used to while running without real-time anti-virus (not recommended!) but because I currently have to share a computer, it doesn't suit the way I want the PC set-up. It's only used now when I want to do something without it making any changes to the computer such as testing software.

Maxxwire

Been reading some of the thread until all I saw was bickering between a few posters which for the regular user just confuses the hell of him. This is suppose to be a Support and Help forum not an AV geek forum that goes in technical details when some don't understand what the heck you are talking about.

With that said, we've been using Norton for the last 4 years and never had any issues with any of our three computers at home. We always buy multiple licenses on sale *usually 30$ for 3 licenses* which is the deal this week in my area to get Norton IS 2011. We are regular end users and don't download crap from pirated sites.

IMO the real culprit in the whole is McAFee. Kills files that it shouldn't kill, takes forever to load up, extremely bloated to the point of slowing system down to a still and most importantly, as it was mentioned, miss' a lot of malware. Again, this is just for the regular user.

Maxxwire

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Digerati

Quote:

Simple math tells us that a 100% score is 5 times higher than a 40% score.

Huh? In what universe is that? In this universe, simple math says that 40 x 2.5 = 100.

Sorry, you are right Comodo scored 250% better than Norton on Matousec's well rounded 148 tests. I'll edit my other post.

~Maxx~

malexous

�� Quote: Originally Posted by kuliddar

IMO the real culprit in the whole is McAFee. Kills files that it shouldn't kill, takes forever to load up, extremely bloated to the point of slowing system down to a still and most importantly, as it was mentioned, miss' a lot of malware. Again, this is just for the regular user.

I have cleaned up 2 computers which were running McAfee and each one had between 50 and 100 pieces of Malware. The one with the greater amount of Malware took 20 minutes just to get to the owner's email account online.

~Maxx~

Guest

Matousec tests aren't as straight forward as they may look. I've already posted some things such as how not all methods used in the tests are not being used by malware (Matousec is good marketing so some vendors started concentrating on these and the other methods instead of real malware and as a result became bloated and sometimes ineffective) and how not all products are tested fully. 12 products are tested only against 9 tests, 4 products are tested only against 12 tests, etc.

Before real malware can attempt any of the methods used in the tests they must first go undetected by (let's talk about Norton then) Antivirus Auto-Protect (definitions and heuristics, I believe) and SONAR3 (will also monitor the malware as they do their thing; sometimes blocking and removing the malware if it wasn't already upon download). There are also other prevention measures such as Norton Insight, IPS and Norton Safe Web (Norton Safe Web is only in NIS and N360 but Norton Safe Web Lite can be downloaded and installed for free).

All products are set to their highest usable settings with the intention that they will ask what to do. The highest testing product probably asked the user, at least, 148 times, allow or block? At least, 148 times Matousec probably clicked block (or similar option). Matousec does not like to test products that silently protect the user [DefenseWall would score really well {possibly 100%} if it was included [it can also be set up to be more interactive. Matousec didn't find the setting or thought it wasn't "usable"]).

[Above posted to help others interpret the results how they like]

There is also a lot of controversy surrounding Matousec and his tests around the internet and certain incidents suggest that Matousec is more about the publicity and money than anything else.

Guest

Quote:

I have a question about cloud based antivirus! Is it better than the traditional where the traditional keeps everything on the host computer or is it better where everything is in the cloud?

The problem with cloud based anything is you have to connect to get there. And you have to ensure you are really there and have not been redirected somewhere else.

Maxxwire

malexous- Your right that Norton takes a very a different approach to computer security than Online Armor, Kaspersky, Comodo or Malware Defender all of which do well in the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge.

Norton makes a product that anyone would find friendly to run and they pay fees to computer manufacturers to have their computer security software pre-loaded onto new computers hoping to gain more new customers.

Norton is still the ubiquitous 800 pound gorilla of computer security and there are many of us who appreciate a little diversity and some new approaches to computer security which require a whole new set of tests for the new innovations in State of the Art computer security that Online Armor, Kaspersky, Comodo and Malware Defender have put into their Security Suites that require a whole new level of security testing which is where the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge comes in. Norton's 40% score does not mean that it is inferior protection its just 'old school' protection on a set of cutting edge computer security tests. Like the Chinese say..."Bu i ang jo shr bu i ang"..."Different is just Different!" There's nothing wrong with Norton its just traditional computer security for the masses and therefore does not do well on the 148 Matousec tests like the better scoring security suites which have the very latest security software that allows them to excel on the Matousec tests.

The bottom line here is that it doesn't matter to me or anyone else that you run NIS 2011 in fact I'm glad that you found a Security Suite that meets your every need, but to cast dispersions on the few brilliant security programmers who have broken away from the herd and seek to invent new computer security applications not with solid proof but by casting thin veils of dispersion and fake controversies just because they are different is very short sighted because you may find yourself having to use some of these applications in NIS after Symantec buys another top level company who specializes in this new level of computer security products just like they did when they bought PC Tools which used to be #1 at the very the top of the Matousec list. Evidently Symantec has a much deeper respect for the value of Matousec's tests than you do when it comes to evaluating and acquiring other computer security companies.

~Maxx~
.

malexous

Behaviour blockers and reputation systems are not old school.

Maxxwire

�� Quote: Originally Posted by malexous

Behaviour blockers and reputation systems are certainly different but not old school.

Again I'm not trying to knock Norton because evidently it is protecting all of you just fine, but the behavior blocker is not Cloud Based like it is in the 'new school' computer security software deploys and the NIS reputation system could never have a large enough of a data base to have the same level of rigorous zero-day detection power of HIPS which goes a long way toward explaining Norton's low score at Matousec. Not that Norton does not protect its users well it just can't pass this higher level of detection well without HIPS software.

Norton also does not make use of modern Sandboxing technology either. I'm not knocking Norton for this because you just don't want to include State of the Art Sandboxing technology in computer security for the masses who have no idea what a Sandbox is.

~Maxx~
.

malexous

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

Evidently Symantec has a much deeper respect for the value of Matousec's tests than you do when it comes to evaluating and acquiring other computer security companies.

Looking forward to the Comodo acquisition... How can one acquisition be evidence?

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

fake controversies

Matousec Discloses Critical Vulnerability in ALL HIPS - Wilders Security Forums

Matousec�s New Moves to Recapture the label �Trustworthy� � Smokey's Security Weblog

There are more links if you care to search.

Mothered

Norton has been my main Security, for as long as I can remember. Even back In the days where Norton Firewall and Anti-spam were separate products.

I'm currently running Norton Internet Security 2011, and can't complain. I find It's Sonar protection to be an excellent defense mechanism Indeed.
Yes, I agree that malicious content does slip through, but what one AV detects, another will miss, and vice-versa.

Maxxwire

�� Quote: Originally Posted by malexous

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

Evidently Symantec has a much deeper respect for the value of Matousec's tests than you do when it comes to evaluating and acquiring other computer security companies.

Looking forward to the Comodo acquisition... How can one acquisition be evidence?

How much evidence can the Symantec acquisition of PC Tools be? Because of it Melih will let never let Symantec buy Comodo after they completely destroyed the former Matousec top testing PC Tools software so that now it only tests #12 next to Norton's #13. PC Tools is now a mere shadow of the prodigious #1 rated computer security software that they were before Symantec acquired the company.

If you believe all that Wilder's slander about Dave Matousec and that by spreading that muck around it will somehow improve Norton's very poor scores by personally discrediting Dave Matousec it won't help Norton look any better.

Any time you want to quit fronting for Norton and just accept the Antivirus tests which it does well on and the excellent protection that you and those who use it enjoy and quit trying to assassinate the character of the fellow who designed the tests that Norton did poorly on as some sort of compensation for Norton's poor showing on a series of tests that Norton was not designed to do well on in the first place instead of the muck raking you have resorted to the better off Norton's reputation will be because when you stand on the positive attributes of Norton to represent it bodes much better at winning people over to Norton than stooping to slander and accusation against others to defend it.

This the kind of positive statement that is going to win support for Norton rather than lashing out in anger...

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Mothered

Norton has been my main Security, for as long as I can remember. Even back In the days where Norton Firewall and Anti-spam were separate products.

I'm currently running Norton Internet Security 2011, and can't complain. I find It's Sonar protection to be an excellent defense mechanism Indeed.

Norton's security attributes are strong enough for it to stand on its own without worrying about how it did on a test that it was not designed to do well on. I need to get over the fact that Norton let 1 Downloading Trojan onto my computer and realize that it was just my sign to move on and find a Security Suite that I was happier with and I apologize for underestimating the tenacity with which you fellows defend Norton. When I read posts like Mothered's I realize that there are many Norton users with a long history of perfect protection and that they are the majority and my unfortunate Norton experience is in the minority.

~Maxx~
.

malexous

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

How much evidence can the Symantec acquisition of PC Tools be?

Edit: Symantec announced the acquisition before PC Tools scored on top: Symantec to Acquire PC Tools and score much lower now since the addition of HIPS type tests: PC Tools Firewall + from good to bad - PC Tools Community Forum

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

Norton's security attributes are strong enough for it to stand on its own without worrying about how it did on a test that it was not designed to do well on.

Which was my point from the get-go and to get away from quotes like these: "$ubstandard", "the deficiencies of its 20th century definitions based Antivirus" and (not your quote:) "useless against rogue AVs".

I recommend some of the top scoring software on Matousec to advanced users and Norton to all users. The Matousec results show the effectiveness of some of the top scoring programs (one of threads I linked to earlier has me saying a similar thing; I have never intended to suggest they can't protect but to suggest that Norton 2011 can) but products that score 2% like Mamutu doesn't mean they can't protect against most threats (Mamutu is very good to use as one of a set-up's layer), they just weren't designed to perform well in these tests.

HIPS software are designed for the tests because they are programed to alert for most actions. Norton's SONAR is not designed for the tests because it monitors every behaviour of a given software and determines for itself whether a file is malicious. "Autorun1 checks whether a malicious software can ensure its code to be persistent in the system by installing itself into the system registry so that Windows Explorer runs the malware every time the user logs in." Legitimate software does this and Autorun1 wasn't programed to do anything else so there is no reason for SONAR (in its mind, at least) to block it.

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Maxxwire

If you believe all that Wilder's slander about Dave Matousec

The eccentricity of some Wilders members does not negate the controversy. If you don't want to read at Wilders, some of it is mentioned here: KHOBE - no problem - Security Blog (G Data did not know that the attack has been documented, in some form or another, a few times before [neither did Matousec, apparently]; the first time being 14 years ago.)

Maxxwire

That's an interesting finding noted in that KHOBE link. Basically it seems Matousec reports a product is bad, but if the product's maker wants to know how, they have to pay (more than $1000!!!) for the report. That reminds me of some of these magical Registry and computer "optimizers" that find 800 errors in your Registry, but if you want to know what they are you have to pay for their product. That's a neat gimmick. I think I'll get on my blog and report that all Dall and Heward Packlet computers are bad, then maybe more people will buy a Digerati Computer.

As I said several pages ago - don't rely on one report.

malexous

�� Quote: Originally Posted by malexous

I recommend some of the top scoring software on Matousec to advanced users and Norton to all users.

Yes, there is computer security program to fit every user's specific security needs. Its refreshing to know that that you are open minded and knowledgeable of the vast array of computer security programs that fulfill the many kinds of computer security needs in a world full of computer users with very diverse computer security needs.

~Maxx~
.

Guest

Edit: Just came across another person that, since putting the recent Norton versions on 100s of clients systems, no longer get call backs about malware.