chat on F-Secure & Norton 09 NOT A COMPARISON

[larryb52]

In the US has a 3 license for 60 bucks, it also says free upgrade to 2009...I already have a license so just a heads up my gut feeling is both F-secure & Norton will release 09 version saturday or sunday...I like F-secure & I tested Norton it runs clean but there still are some doubts for me there, I may not get it this year...

[emperordarius]

I'd definitely go for F-Secure.

[CountryGuy]

-{ Quote: "In the US has a 3 license for 60 bucks, it also says free upgrade to 2009...I already have a license so just a heads up my gut feeling is both F-secure & Norton will release 09 version saturday or sunday...I like F-secure & I tested Norton it runs clean but there still are some doubts for me there, I may not get it this year..." }-

Both provide good security... Not sure which one you already have a license for, but given neither is horribly bad, if its working for you I'd just stay with what you got.

[NAMOR]

-{ Quote: "... so just a heads up my gut feeling is both F-secure & Norton will release 09 version saturday or sunday..." }-


...gut feeling?

[larryb52]

gut feeling & that the most recent Norton I downloaded was announced as the last & they usually release 9/1...

[NAMOR]

-{ Quote: "gut feeling & that the most recent Norton I downloaded was announced as the last & they usually release 9/1..." }-

I did not know that, thanks for the info.

[vijayind]

I have licence for both F-Secure and Norton. And have tried both their betas.

Of late F-Secure has become a resource hog and has not kept pace with features found in other suites.
Incomparison, Norton has improved by leaps and bounds. Its smaller and faster.

If 2009 of the two were in comparision, I might be inclined to go for Norton.

[pc20571]

Both F-Secure and Norton are very -Heavy- on the system.
In terms of Detection Rate and Malware Removal Ability,
F-Secure is, by far, the winner.
So, if I had to install either F-Secure or Norton, I would prefer F-Secure.

Cheers, :)

[Someone]

Hi
-{ Quote: "Both F-Secure and Norton are very -Heavy- on the system.
In terms of Detection Rate and Malware Removal Ability,
F-Secure is, by far, the winner.
So, if I had to install either F-Secure or Norton, I would prefer F-Secure.

Cheers, :) " }-
Isn't Norton 09 really light?
Do you have any evidence to back up your statement of F-secure being much better than Norton?

Thanks

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "Both F-Secure and Norton are very -Heavy- on the system.
In terms of Detection Rate and Malware Removal Ability,
F-Secure is, by far, the winner.
So, if I had to install either F-Secure or Norton, I would prefer F-Secure.

Cheers, :) " }-

Well, my parents PC (where I used FIS 2008 ) got hit by some spyware which kept killing F-Secure off.
I got in touch with F-Secure Support, they asked me do do a F-Secure Online test that too failed to find anything. Their answer, you have VISTA ISSUES !!

Anyways, I ran eScan MWAV (http://www.mwti.net/products/mwav/mwav.asp) it found the spyware. Then on confirmation, I removed the gunk using Ad-Aware 2008.

So my experience with F-Secure hasn't been pleasant. And if you see most AV-Comparative Proactive (http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2008_05.php) my point is vindicated.

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: " And if you see most AV-Comparative Proactive (http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2008_05.php) my point is vindicated." }-

That's only heuristic detection. F-Secure's main power is DeepGuard. That last time it was tested (2007) it detected all the threats without using signatures.
http://www.f-secure.com/f-secure/pressroom/news/fs_news_20070620_01-eng.html

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "That's only heuristic detection. F-Secure's main power is DeepGuard. That last time it was tested (2007) it detected all the threats without using signatures.
http://www.f-secure.com/f-secure/pressroom/news/fs_news_20070620_01-eng.html" }-
No offense.
But DeepGuard didn't protect against that spyware infection. So I am skeptic of F-Secure from my experience. And that Deepguard test too old. I am not sure you can use it in today's context.

In comparison Norton gives you decent heuristic scanning protection and also 0-day protection (like Deepguard) using SONAR. So from my point of view, Norton is better.
Plus Norton 2009 is soooo much lighter than F-Secure and it doesn't take up 300 MB hard disk space.

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "No offense.
But DeepGuard didn't protect against the spyware that infection. So I am skeptic of F-Secure from my experience. And that Deepguard test too old. I am not sure you can use it in today's context.

In comparison Norton gives you decent heuristic scanning protection and also 0-day protection (like Deepguard) using SONAR. So from my point of view, Norton is better.
Plus Norton 2009 is soooo much lighter than F-Secure and it doesn't take up 300 MB hard disk space." }-

Well, DeepGuard isn't perfect, no offence but, since your parent used it, maybe they didn't take much attention to the pop ups?
We haven't seen F-Secure's 2009 heuristic detection tests yet, maybe they improved it.
I have seen Norton miss spyware(and malware) much more than any other antivirus I tried, not only one time like in your case.
About lightness: Yes, Norton is much lighter indeed. However F-Secure uses more than a single engine, which means it must be heavier.

[lodore]

f-secure may be heavy but its very good at protecting and didnt let me down.

[Sputnik]

@vijayind
DeepGuard is very powerful and detects many many 0day threats (including lots of spyware and ZLOB variants). The amount of alarms triggered by DeepGuard is very much lowered. The alarms that show up are quite informative and easier to understand than Kaspersky's for example.

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "Well, DeepGuard isn't perfect, no offence but, since your parent used it, maybe they didn't take much attention to the pop ups?
We haven't seen F-Secure's 2009 heuristic detection tests yet, maybe they improved it.
I have seen Norton miss spyware(and malware) much more than any other antivirus I tried, not only one time like in your case.
About lightness: Yes, Norton is much lighter indeed. However F-Secure uses more than a single engine, which means it must be heavier." }-

Well I had set, FIS to automatically disinfect/quarantine any threats. Still I don't rule out the eventuality that Dad could have missed it.

But IMO, the any AV should have a strong scanner. Else we could all just use HIPS like DefenseWall and throw out AV software. The point is, that socially engineered attacks may fool people to let there guard down and get infected.
So at the core, the AV heuristic/signature scanner should do the job. Any AV that doesn't do this well is mediocre at best, be it Norton or F-Secure.
Single engine or multiple engine, efficiency is should be high. For 60 MB more RAM, I expect atleast 20-30% better results than single engine products.

Till 2008, neutral 3rd party and my own tests have shown that F-Secure lags behind Norton (which isn't all that great a product itself) on my parameters. In 2009 ?? We can speculate. But from what I have seen from the respective beta. Norton has improved more than F-Secure. So IMO, the gap is likely to widen and not shrink.

But this is purely my opinion, no offense to any anyone.

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "Well I had set, FIS to automatically disinfect/quarantine any threats. Still I don't rule out the eventuality that Dad could have missed it.

But IMO, the any AV should have a strong scanner. Else we could all just use HIPS like DefenseWall and throw out AV software. The point is, that socially engineered attacks may fool people to let there guard down and get infected.
So at the core, the AV heuristic/signature scanner should do the job. Any AV that doesn't do this well is mediocre at best, be it Norton or F-Secure.
Single engine or multiple engine, efficiency is should be high. For 60 MB more RAM, I expect atleast 20-30% better results than single engine products.

Till 2008, neutral 3rd party and my own tests have shown that F-Secure lags behind Norton (which isn't all that great a product itself) on my parameters. In 2009 ?? We can speculate. But from what I have seen from the respective beta. Norton has improved more than F-Secure. So IMO, the gap is likely to widen and not shrink.

But this is purely my opinion, no offense to any anyone." }-

So probably DeepGuard would have catched the spyware.

Anyway, you think that antiviruses should have a better heuristic detection, so that even non savvy users can surf safely without clicking any popups? The problem with heuristic detection is that it can be bypassed easily. I have seen samples getting past the heuristic detection of ALL famous avs, only by a little hex editing and packing. But they couldn't get through the HIPS of some avs(including F-Secure). Still, as the years will pass HIPS will become more and more Intelligent, so easier to use. But until now, an av without any behaviour blocking system, that relies only on signatures and heuristics is a lost av.

It sure is good if an AV has both very strong heuristic and HIPS functions, still the HIPS functions will prevail on new threats in the end.

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "@vijayind
DeepGuard is very powerful and detects many many 0day threats (including lots of spyware and ZLOB variants). The amount of alarms triggered by DeepGuard is very much lowered. The alarms that show up are quite informative and easier to understand than Kaspersky's for example." }-

Just to point out that the malware that hit my parents PC was some Zlob variant. Some rogue AV program ( can't recall the name).

May be DeepGuard might have detected it. But when accidentally novice users by-pass behavioral blocker pop-ups. The AV suite should still be able to protect the user, in order to be called Powerful and Good. So a overall good product should have excellent protection at all layers, not just the first layer.

Thats my view-point. Due to which between Norton & F-Secure, I would choose Norton (for now).

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "Both F-Secure and Norton are very -Heavy- on the system.
In terms of Detection Rate and Malware Removal Ability,
F-Secure is, by far, the winner.
So, if I had to install either F-Secure or Norton, I would prefer F-Secure.

Cheers, :) " }-

Norton 2009 is not heavy at all (I have been beta testing NIS 2009)- in fact, it is as light as Nod32, Dr. Web, or Avira. F-Secure is a resource hog on my machines- I would not use it.

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "So probably DeepGuard would have catched the spyware.

Anyway, you think that antiviruses should have a better heuristic detection, so that even non savvy users can surf safely without clicking any popups? The problem with heuristic detection is that it can be bypassed easily. I have seen samples getting past the heuristic detection of ALL famous avs, only by a little hex editing and packing. But they couldn't get through the HIPS of some avs(including F-Secure). Still, as the years will pass HIPS will become more and more Intelligent, so easier to use. But until now, an av without any behaviour blocking system, that relies only on signatures and heuristics is a lost av.

It sure is good if an AV has both very strong heuristic and HIPS functions, still the HIPS functions will prevail on new threats in the end." }-

I agree heuristics can be by-passed. But Norton has HIPS called SONAR. And in Norton 2009 they have integrated almost all of NAB into SONAR. So I don't think, that in any way SONAR would be inferior to DeepGuard.

So my conclusion is:

Norton has SONAR same as DeepGuard of F-Secure.
Norton also has a better scanner than F-Secure.
Norton also takes less resources.

Add all of that up, Norton seems to have a edge (when compared with F-Secure).

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "I agree heuristics can be by-passed. But Norton has HIPS called SONAR. And in Norton 2009 they have integrated almost all of NAB into SONAR. So I don't think, that in any way SONAR would be inferior to DeepGuard.

So my conclusion is:

Norton has SONAR same as DeepGuard of F-Secure.
Norton also has a better scanner than F-Secure.
Norton also takes less resources.

Add all of that up, Norton seems to have a edge (when compared with F-Secure)." }-

I see. We'll see comparisons about Sonar and DeepGuard in the future Av-Comparative tests I gues..

BTW What do you mean by better scanner? I don't think that Norton has a better detection rate than F-Secure.

[Sputnik]

-{ Quote: "Just to point out that the malware that hit my parents PC was some Zlob variant. Some rogue AV program ( can't recall the name)." }-
In our tests DeepGuard detected all rogue AV's during the last couple of months (WinAntiVirus / PowerAntiVirus ect.).

@emperordarius
DeepGuard won't show it's potential during the current proactive tests preformed by AV-Comparatives. As far I remember IBK was planning to change this in 2009.

@[topic]
In the 2009 version F-Secure will replace the 3rd party scanners with their own Hydra engine witch has quite some potential. You'll get 3 real-time engines (AVP, Hydra and DeepGuard) plus Blacklight for rootkit scannning and removal.

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "
BTW What do you mean by better scanner? I don't think that Norton has a better detection rate than F-Secure." }-
Yes, it does (as of 2008 family).
See the AV-Comparative Proactive list. (http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2008_05.php)

Norton got STANDARD grade, while F-Secure was too low for grades. Plus the amount of FPs for F-Secure where also higher.

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "In our tests DeepGuard detected all rogue AV's during the last couple of months (WinAntiVirus / PowerAntiVirus ect.).

@emperordarius
DeepGuard won't show it's potential during the current proactive tests preformed by AV-Comparatives. As far I remember IBK was planning to change this in 2009.

@[topic]
In the 2009 version F-Secure will replace the 3rd party scanners with their own Hydra engine witch has quite some potential. You'll get 3 real-time engines (AVP, Hydra and DeepGuard) plus Blacklight for rootkit scannning and removal." }-

Did you test also NAB/Sonar ? Is it as good or better ?

Both F-Secure and Norton have undergone surgery and both have new engines. So we can give benefit of the doubt to both of them, until comparative tests arrive.

[Sputnik]

@vijayind
Please notice that NAB and Sonar are two different things. NAB was also included in our testing, and is quite well at detecting rogue programs as well. Downside of NAB is that the rogue applications or other 0day threats are getting installed and quarantined after the 'installation process'. DeepGuard most of the time fully prevents it from installing.

I'm sorry I can't publish full test reports since it's classified.

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "@vijayind
Please notice that NAB and Sonar are two different things. NAB was also included in our testing, and is quite well at detecting rogue programs as well. Downside of NAB is that the rogue applications or other 0day threats are getting installed and quarantined after the 'installation process'. DeepGuard most of the time fully prevents it from installing.

I'm sorry I can't publish full test reports since it's classified." }-
Ok, I can understand your restrictions.
But in Norton 2009, NAB and SONAR have been integrated.
Please see Wilders Post here (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1297904&postcount=220), which has link to Symantec Forum where more specific are available.

So now in Norton 2009 will be comparable to DeepGuard, IMO.

[Sputnik]

@vijayind
Roger! Didn't knew the integration of NAB in SONAR was already completed. However in the current 2008 versions SONAR didn't seem to impress really.

The only doubts I have is that SONAR with NAB integrated seems more a temporary solution since the NAB technology is not owed by Symantec. I won't be surprised to see it getting replaced by ThreatFire in the 2010 versions.

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "Yes, it does (as of 2008 family).
See the AV-Comparative Proactive list. (http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2008_05.php)

Norton got STANDARD grade, while F-Secure was too low for grades. Plus the amount of FPs for F-Secure where also higher." }-

Ah, you mean heuristic detection? Yeah, Norton is better on that. By the way both Symantec and F-Secure made 2 false positives. But I meant signature detection.

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "@vijayind
The only doubts I have is that SONAR with NAB integrated seems more a temporary solution since the NAB technology is not owed by Symantec. I won't be surprised to see it getting replaced by ThreatFire in the 2010 versions." }-
I agree, since NAB was basically licensed from Sana Security its probably a temporary solution. Which probably will be replaced by the newly acquired PCTools' ThreatFire.

So Norton will have a good HIPS solution anyways.

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "Ah, you mean heuristic detection? Yeah, Norton is better on that. By the way both Symantec and F-Secure made 2 false positives. But I meant signature detection." }-
If you look at the On-demand comparative (http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/comparatives.html), Norton got 97.7% and F-Secure 97.5 %.

In heuristic/proactive test, (http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/comparatives.html) Norton beat F-Secure hands-down by a large margin.

In cumulative sense, I then conclude Norton has a better scanner than F-Secure.

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "If you look at the On-demand comparative (http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/comparatives.html), Norton got 97.7% and F-Secure 97.5 %.

In heuristic/proactive test, (http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/comparatives.html) Norton beat F-Secure hands-down by a large margin.

In cumulative sense, I then conclude Norton has a better scanner than F-Secure." }-

I agree on heuristic detection, but from my experience on a lot of computers I can't agree on signature detection. To say the truth This test is much more near to my experience: http://www.virus.gr/portal/en/content/2008-06%2C-1-21-june

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "I agree on heuristic detection, but from my experience on a lot of computers I can't agree on signature detection. To say the truth This test is much more near to my experience: http://www.virus.gr/portal/en/content/2008-06%2C-1-21-june" }-
Sure if you trust virus.gr Those tests are highly debated.
But my point is that in cumulatively Norton (with heuristic + signature) scanner is better.

[CountryGuy]

Not that I'm an admin, but this suuuure is starting to look like a this vs that thread ;D

I thought (and I could be wrong) the original question was if it was worth changing one for the other if the OP already had a license for one of the products. I didn't think so (sure there are differences between the two, but both provide pretty good protection - enough that I don't think a switch is worth the extra $$$).

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "Sure if you trust virus.gr Those tests are highly debated.
But my point is that in cumulatively Norton (with heuristic + signature) scanner is better." }-

It's not that I trust virus.gr more than av-comparatives, just giving that as an example of how the things are according to my experience.

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "It's not that I trust virus.gr more than av-comparatives, just giving that as an example of how the things are according to my experience." }-
And I have given my opinion. Let let larry decide which is better for him. ;D

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "Not that I'm an admin, but this suuuure is starting to look like a this vs that thread ;D
" }-
:'(
Not again .... I just got a wrap on my knuckles a few weeks back... :wacko:

[eBBox]

Just a side note.. I've seen infected McAfee, Symantec, Kaspersky and so on computers - but ive actually never seen an infectet F-Secure machine :)

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "Just a side note.. I've seen infected McAfee, Symantec, Kaspersky and so on computers - but ive actually never seen an infectet F-Secure machine :)" }-
Unfortunately I have. Hence the grimness. :dry:

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "Unfortunately I have. Hence the grimness. :dry:" }-
You mean the parent situation? In that case your parents didn't have full control so the situation could have been different if they would have known how to use DeepGuard.

@eBBox:me too, with the difference that all the Kav-infected users had blacklisted keys.;D

[Ade 1]

Hi all.

I've just been over to F-Secure's website (as we use their Client Security at work) and see they're advertising IS2009, AV2009 and Home Server 2009 for release on the 3rd September.

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "Hi all.

I've just been over to F-Secure's website (as we use their Client Security at work) and see they're advertising IS2009, AV2009 and Home Server 2009 for release on the 3rd September." }-

I can't seen it on f-secure's website??? Only a tag that says "[Product name]2009 Free upgrade "

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "I can't seen it on f-secure's website??? Only a tag that says "[Product name]2009 Free upgrade "" }-
maybe your using blocking scripts?
there is a big banner at the top.

[Sputnik]

@Ade 1
That's right, the 2009 versions will be released the 3rd of September. Client Security 8 will follow somewhere in Q4 2008.

[lodore]

hmm according to the notes on the beta page there should be 64bit vista support.
will have to check on september 3rd.

[emperordarius]

@lodore : Adblock's fault. I had to disable it in order to see the banner. But I completed the puzzle!;D

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "@lodore : Adblock's fault. I had to disable it in order to see the banner. But I completed the puzzle!;D" }-
LOL
what did completing the puzzle do?
when i completed the puzzle in opera it took me to an empty cart.
the top of the page said something like free upgrade to 2009 version or something.

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "LOL
what did completing the puzzle do?
when i completed the puzzle in opera it took me to an empty cart.
the top of the page said something like free upgrade to 2009 version or something." }-

Lol 202585

[Ade 1]

I think it's more to do if you buy FS2008 you'll be able to use the same activation key with FS2009 hence it being termed as a free upgrade!

I beta tested IS2009 back in June (the last release was the RC on 3rd June) and it ran very well but it was just a shame that there was never any future builds to address the issues highlighted in the release notes and also feedback given by testers.

So the official release is 3 months on from the RC - I will wait to see.

[Zombini]

-{ Quote: " but ive actually never seen an infectet F-Secure machine :)" }-

Thats probably because no one really runs F-Secure.

[Ade 1]

-{ Quote: "Thats probably because no one really runs F-Secure." }-

Welcome to the forums Mr Cynical.

[CountryGuy]

-{ Quote: "Welcome to the forums Mr Cynical." }-
Crud, I wish I thought of that name before I registered as CountryGuy - That's great! ;D

[pc20571]

-{ Quote: "Norton 2009 is not heavy at all (I have been beta testing NIS 2009)- in fact, it is as light as Nod32, Dr. Web, or Avira. F-Secure is a resource hog on my machines- I would not use it." }-

O.K. let's suppose that Norton 2009 is lighter than F-Secure.
Is Norton 2009 better in Detection/Cleaning than F-Secure?
Come on, now...Are we playing with words?

[pc20571]

-{ Quote: "Hi

Isn't Norton 09 really light?
Do you have any evidence to back up your statement of F-secure being much better than Norton?

Thanks" }-

Yes, I do!
Check the Comparative tests:
http://www.av-test.com,
http://antivirus.ru/,
http://virusinfo.info/,
http://anti-malware-test.com/
See some info at
http://www.shadowserver.org/
and
http://winnow.oitc.com/AntiVirusPerformance.html

Just to name a few...;D :)

[LowWaterMark]

While I'm not sure that the first post in this thread was asking for this, it clearly has since turned into a direct "better" comparison between Norton and F-Secure.