Symantec's view on there upcoming 2009 suite and Norton's new future technologies....

[denniz]

Source (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2308131,00.asp?kc=PCRSS05079TX1K0000992)

{QUOTE-> Rowan Trollope, senior vice president at Symantec, shares his vision of the ultimate security suite and some thoughts on Symantec's future, both in the security realm and beyond.

Rowan Trollope, senior vice president at Symantec , has a vision. He pictures a security suite that doesn't impact system performance at all—even one that makes the computer run faster. And he hopes Norton Internet Security 2009 will be that suite. Trollope shared this vision and some thoughts on Symantec's future, both in the security realm and beyond.

What Consumers Want
Trollope worked for Symantec in the early nineties supporting Norton Utilities, then moved to the Enterprise group. He returned to the consumer side in 2006 to take over the ailing Norton Internet Security line and turn it around; NIS 2007 and NIS 2008 are evidence of his success. But consumers don't have a clear yardstick for deciding which suite to buy. "They think Norton's pretty much the same as Kaspersky, or Microsoft ," said Trollope. "This is compounded by a feeling that maybe security isn't as important as it was. We've stopped hearing about virus threats on CNN, and Microsoft keeps trumpeting how great Vista's security is". <-QUOTE}Source (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2308131,00.asp?kc=PCRSS05079TX1K0000992)

[computer geek]

Did you copy and paste that? :thumbd:

[emperordarius]

Symantec's signatures go around 80-90,000. What do they think they can do with that mediocre number of threats?
And it REALLY hopes to have a 99% detection? Hahhahahahhahahahah!

Symantec is Late. The Ultimate Security Suite is already here (or almost). It's Kaspersky 2009.

[denniz]

{QUOTE-> Did you copy and paste that? :thumbd: <-QUOTE}
{QUOTE-> Symantec's view on there upcoming 2009 suite and Norton's new future technologies.... <-QUOTE}
{QUOTE-> Source (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2308131,00.asp?kc=PCRSS05079TX1K0000992) <-QUOTE}

Does it matter if I copy and pasted it? It's Symantec's view on there new suite, not my view, hence the copy/paste. And I think the topic-title and the provided source made that perfectly clear! ::)

Or would a quote have made you feel better?

[Bunkhouse Buck]

{QUOTE-> Symantec's signatures go around 80-90,000. What do they think they can do with that mediocre number of threats?
And it REALLY hopes to have a 99% detection? Hahhahahahhahahahah!

Symantec is Late. The Ultimate Security Suite is already here (or almost). It's Kaspersky 2009. <-QUOTE}

Not until they improve their heuristics; as they are a long way from Avira or NOD32.

[plantextract]

{QUOTE-> Symantec's signatures go around 80-90,000. What do they think they can do with that mediocre number of threats? <-QUOTE}
that's the whole common missconception about signature counts. Symantec detects a lot of stuff with a generic signature name and not a specific one like other anti-viruses (kaspersky, avira, nod etc). The signature can be used to detect thousands of malware.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

{QUOTE-> that's the whole common missconception about signature counts. Symantec detects a lot of stuff with a generic signature name and not a specific one like other anti-viruses (kaspersky, avira, nod etc). The signature can be used to detect thousands of malware. <-QUOTE}

Obviously it is working as they have not missed in the wild malware for years and their heuristics are decent.

[emperordarius]

{QUOTE-> Obviously it is working as they have not missed in the wild malware for years and their heuristics are decent. <-QUOTE}

Correction: they have not missed in TESTS, but in real life? I'd seriously like to put Symantec on 10 computers and fill them up with malware, and then see how much it detects. I have personal experience on Symantec not being able to detect even half of the malware on computers. Picture.exe in the pictures folder? Clean. New Folder.exe in New Folder? Clean. Grr...

We're in 2008, and not in 1998.

[denniz]

I know there are a lot of Norton haters here on Wilders :P but I think there are some promising features that might arrive in the 2009 suite. There are hints that Symantec is gonna incorporate Norton Antibot in the 2009 version. Also they mention implementing huge whitelisting and delivering definitions in a whole new way. Also the following quote I find very interesting:

{QUOTE->
Trollope explained that Symantec is in the middle of a three-year push to invent a completely new type of protection against malware. Developed by Carey Nachenberg, a Symantec Fellow and the company's most senior technologist, the innovative technology is built on statistical techniques. Trollope offered a very simple example. If a particular application is installed on millions of systems, it's almost certainly not malicious. But an application that's found on just a handful out of a million almost always is malware.
<-QUOTE}

I wonder what this is gonna be all about...

[emperordarius]

{QUOTE-> I know there are a lot of Norton haters here on Wilders :P

<-QUOTE}

Of course, you've got to see the """""""""""""""efficiency""""""""""""""" yourself to understand the truth.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

{QUOTE-> Correction: they have not missed in TESTS, but in real life? I'd seriously like to put Symantec on 10 computers and fill them up with malware, and then see how much it detects. I have personal experience on Symantec not being able to detect even half of the malware on computers. Picture.exe in the pictures folder? Clean. New Folder.exe in New Folder? Clean. Grr...

We're in 2008, and not in 1998. <-QUOTE}

My experience is the exact opposite of yours. You obviously are promoting Kaspersky. I alternate between 7 AVs, and Kaspersky is not one of them.

[denniz]

{QUOTE-> Symantec's signatures go around 80-90,000. What do they think they can do with that mediocre number of threats?
<-QUOTE}

Number of definitions really don't say anything, vendors calculate definitions in different ways. Some vendors calculate each and every virus as a separate definition, even if they are very closely related and belong to the same family. This way vendors can achieve and advertise with very big numbers.

Other vendors just use 1 definition to detect a complete family of viruses, this way they keep there definition database much smaller, while achieving the same detection rate as vendors who use 1 definition for 1 individual virus.

[emperordarius]

{QUOTE-> My experience is the exact opposite of yours. You obviously are promoting Kaspersky. I alternate between 7 AVs, and Kaspersky is not one of them. <-QUOTE}

I use Kaspersky because I like it, Only because in real life it was the ONLY one that kept my system (and the system of all the ones I know) clean. But I can freely say that at least other 4 antiviruses are as good at it. Ah, yeah, needless to say, Dr.Web isn't included in those 4, neither.

[ronjor]

Stay on topic please.

[C.S.J]

regardless of what some people may think of norton.....

If they can produce what they claim, it will be hard for anyone, including myself, to not take another look at them.

Norton have always had the people and funds to create something that others simply can't match, we shall see....

18,000 employees vs kasperskys 600-800 vs drwebs 70 or so.

Let's wait and see what they can do.

[Victek123]

In this quote Symantec talks about improving performance, but they don't say anything about system overhead - that's been the real problem with NIS IMHO. I've never found the speed of the initial installation or LiveUpdate to be an issue. It will be interesting to see what the beta is like.

[emperordarius]

{QUOTE-> regardless of what some people may think of norton.....

If they can produce what they claim, it will be hard for anyone, including myself, to not take another look at them.

Norton have always had the people and funds to create something that others simply can't match, we shall see....

18,000 employees vs kasperskys 600-800 vs drwebs 70 or so.

Let's wait and see what they can do. <-QUOTE}

18,000 employees and updates once a day. That's a thing that needs to be improved.

[denniz]

{QUOTE-> ... and updates once a day. That's a thing that needs to be improved. <-QUOTE}

Norton does update checks more then once a day. But I do agree that compared with other vendors they have room for improvement here. Sometimes it will and sometimes it won't find multiple updates per day.

[denniz]

I'm glad that Symantec recognizes the fact that signature based detection is becoming less and less usefull in it's current form, although I still believe blacklisting is a useful addition when used together with other technologies.

{QUOTE->
If successful, this will be a truly significant advancement. Signature-based detection is always a step behind the bad guys —a zero-day threat has free reign until they can cobble up a new signature. Even behavior-based detection needs samples of malware so it can distinguish malicious programs from good ones. The statistical technique doesn't need any information about a program's signature, nor about its behavior. It should detect a new malicious program from day one (with "should" being the operative word). <-QUOTE}

[TonyW]

{QUOTE-> Symantec's signatures go around 80-90,000. What do they think they can do with that mediocre number of threats? <-QUOTE}That doesn't mean they detect only 80,000-90,000 viruses. The figure is way beyond that as one signature can detect many variants. If you look through their virus encyclopedia, you'll see lots of descriptions that have been updated many times since their first inclusion. This will be the tweaking of adding variants to the same family.

[emperordarius]

{QUOTE-> That doesn't mean they detect only 80,000-90,000 viruses. The figure is way beyond that as one signature can detect many variants. If you look through their virus encyclopedia, you'll see lots of descriptions that have been updated many times since their first inclusion. This will be the tweaking of adding variants to the same family. <-QUOTE}

Yeah ok, ok you're the third user that say that. No need to say that again.;D

[Jadda]

{QUOTE-> Yeah ok, ok you're the third user that say that. No need to say that again.;D <-QUOTE}

They just want to show you that you were wrong, and a little to fast to complain.

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,

I like the article. This man seems to know what the customer wants.
Performance no.1, yes of course! Excellent! That's the right approach.

Hopefully, Symantec will begin the un-bloat trend in the industry and the rest will follow. And then, normal people will be able to use normal security software once again ...

P.S. I hate them for ruining Sygate, though :)

Mrk

[Baldrick]

{QUOTE-> In this quote Symantec talks about improving performance, but they don't say anything about system overhead - that's been the real problem with NIS IMHO. I've never found the speed of the initial installation or LiveUpdate to be an issue. It will be interesting to see what the beta is like. <-QUOTE}
Spot on there Vic. I fully agree.

But speed for speed's sake is not something that I am interested in. Speed needs to be temperered by accuracy, ie, "more speed, less haste"...but having said that if they can do it then good for them and I think that they will get a lot of prior users (and new users) coming to them...we need to wait and see.;)

[Baldrick]

{QUOTE-> Hello,

I like the article. This man seems to know what the customer wants.
Performance no.1, yes of course! Excellent! That's the right approach.

Hopefully, Symantec will begin the un-bloat trend in the industry and the rest will follow. And then, normal people will be able to use normal security software once again ...

P.S. I hate them for ruining Sygate, though :)

Mrk <-QUOTE}
What 'un-bloat trend'? What bloated? Define bloated? NIS 2008 was certainly not bloated compared to NIS 2006 & 2007, and I would certainly not say that Avira, or KIS or KAV, just to state some that I have looked at, are bloated. They are all functionally rich and perform well.

Beware of performance for performance sake!;)

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,

Bloated to Mrk's chart of bloatedness. As simple as that.
One tool, one function. The Swiss army knife was invented long time ago.

I prefer 100 tiny tools that do job well in their narrow area than 1 tools that does 100 job lousily.

Example - ping. Did you ever hear anyone complain about ping? Now, imagine ping also became a registry editor, oh my oh my.

Performance = good design, slim design, narrow, efficient functionality.

Mrk

[Baldrick]

{QUOTE-> Hello,

Bloated to Mrk's chart of bloatedness. As simple as that.
One tool, one function. The Swiss army knife was invented long time ago.

I prefer 100 tiny tools that do job well in their narrow area than 1 tools that does 100 job lousily.

Example - ping. Did you ever hear anyone complain about ping? Now, imagine ping also became a registry editor, oh my oh my.

Performance = good design, slim design, narrow, efficient functionality.

Mrk <-QUOTE}
Well, it is all a matter of opinion. NIS in the past may not have been very good in terms of what it delivered compared to its 'size' (I am using your measuring scale) but NIS 2008 certainly was a revelation compared to previous versions...and they are heading in the right direction.

But "Performance = good design, slim design, narrow, efficient functionality." Ha, ha...makes me laugh...where is accuracy in all that? 100 tiny tools that are in accurate are certainly not that good.;)