Norton Antivirus/not so bad!

[bigc73542]

(first of all I am not supporting use of this program. that said) I am really getting annoyed by all of the self nominated norton antivirus bashers. I realize it is a large program but that doesn't hurt the way it works.

check the links and please tell me what is wrong with the detection rates of norton.

VB (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?symantec.xml)

AV-comparatives (http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2005_02.php)

West Coast Check-Mark (http://www.westcoastlabs.org/cm-av-products.asp?Comp_ID=23&Cat_ID=1)

[richrf]

Hi BigC,

I have no idea how or why Norton AV works in the way it does. I do know, for a fact, that I had many severe leakages when I was using it a year and a half ago, prior to switching to KAV. I used Norton for a long time because I thought it was the best. Then, after having several very bad problems, I decided to look around and see what was going on. I came upon Widers and at that point realized that I had better options.

Recently, by friend had a stupendous leakage while running Norton AV (it came with his laptop that was purchased about a month ago). Given what I saw, after running Ewido, TDS-3, and KAV, there is absolutely no way I could ever recommend Norton to a friend or acquaintence (in this particular case I recommend KAV 5.0 MP3, RegDefend, and ProcessGuard, which he adopted). There is just no way. I couldn't possible ignore my own incidents or that of my friends. He was shocked to see the keyloggers and other trojans on his system that KAV, Ewido, and TDS-3 were able to detect.

Others may choose to recommend Norton AV based upon how well it has done on tests. This is, of course, valid. But I couldn't face my friends if I ever recommended Norton and one of them had the same problems as the ones I have described. What I do is this: I recommend the setup that I have chosen, because it is the one that I honestly feel provides excellent protection. Of course, others may have completely different experiences as myself and will recommend differently. Some people recommend Hondas and others recommned Toyotas. And so the world turns. :)

Cya,
Rich

[Firecat]

IMHO, for me - nothing is wrong with Norton Anti-Virus.

-It has good detection rates
-It is a bit heavy (but why do I have 1GB of RAM anyway ;))

And it ran fine on my system as well.

The only thing I do not like about Norton is the price - It is out of my reach, and other AVs provide slightly better features at a lower price.

Besides, in my country, Symantec keeps raising the renewal price every year.

[bigc73542]

The first norton av I ever used came on floppy disc for dos. And I have used it of and on for a lot of years with no trouble except having to update live update because it quit working for a couple of days. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but from the experience I have had with it I can't see what the problem is. I don't want you to get the wrong idea here, I don't use norton now either but in my case the reason is that I have active license's for at least eight av's right now or I might would be useing it. Granted symantec spends a lot on advertising but if their product didn't perform it would not sell. And symantecs profits were up something like thirty percent this year. They must be making a fair product to stay up near the top all of these years.

[bigc73542]

{QUOTE-> IMHO, for me - nothing is wrong with Norton Anti-Virus.

-It has good detection rates
-It is a bit heavy (but why do I have 1GB of RAM anyway ;))

And it ran fine on my system as well.

The only thing I do not like about Norton is the price - It is out of my reach, and other AVs provide slightly better features at a lower price.

Besides, in my country, Symantec keeps raising the renewal price every year. <-QUOTE}


I will agree symantec products are fairly pricey.

[Vikorr]

The problem with NAV is not as a virus engine (although KAV outpoints it well and truly), as it does have excellent results.

Nortons 'downfall' as an AV is it's poor detection rates of trojans, which in this day and age are the more common and the more serious threat (almost all the most common 'virii' posted on AV boards are in fact worms or trojans).

See these for what I mean :

http://www.claymania.com/tests-trojan.html
http://www.anti-trojan-software-reviews.com/trojan-detection-test.htm

If you wonder at why there is such a difference in detection rate percentages of trojans, it seems to stem from the type of trojans that are used for testing.

If you test using the generic trojans then the percentage detection rate increases. If you test using the nastiest trojans (which is really what you want to protect from), then the detection rate decreases.

Some trojans can now protect themselves from being read...which means the only way to detect them is with a memory scanner AFTER they've infected your machine and loaded - normally only AS/AT's have memory scanners. Some hide in NTFS streams which almost no AV or AT are currently capable of scanning (TDS3, TH, and Ewido being the current exceptions that I know of). Some inject themselves into running processes (TH seems to be the best for cleaning these), some install rootkits which are used to remotely access your machine....of course the best way to prevent this sort of stuff is with things like PG, PrevX and Regdefend...but if you are using purely a AV (which the vast majority do) instead of an AV&AT, then Nortons can fail you badly.

Having said that, I currently use Nortons, but with an AT also. May eventually switch to KAV.

PS can't find the page, but there was a AV comparison that showed, once even the free AV's are combined with an AT like Ewido, the difference between detection rates of them and KAV (top rated AV) became neglible.

[richrf]

Hi Vikorr,

Good points. One could recommend Norton with a good AT such as Ewido, BOClean, or TDS-3 (both TDS-3 and Ewido were able to detect the keylogger and other trojans on my friend's machine). But when it comes to recommending a product set, it just seems like it makes more sense to just recommend KAV (which covers AVs, trojans, and spyware very well), and possible ProcessGuard and RegDefend if the user is interested. I do not see any reason to recommend Norton other than possibily to help it maintain its marketshare. ;)

Anyway, your I believe your comments are on target .. at least they well represent my own experiences.

Rich

[bellgamin]

I used Norton for a while, 5 or 6 years ago, & liked it. What I did NOT like was the condescension & aloofness I encountered when I sought support from Symantec.

[Firecat]

Symantec/Norton is not all that bad in Trojan detection. If you see http://www.av-comparatives.org (the latest On-Demand Test), you'll see that it does quite respectably at detecting Trojans.

Norton does not clean the registry entries of malware at all.......but some others dont, either (e.g. TrendMicro)

No offense intended :)

Overall NAV is a good program - good at detecting Adware, Viruses and Trojans. But it still is a bit pricey.

However, I would also like to point out that Norton doesnt have a very good unpack engine. That is not too good for my personal needs.

[Infinity]

I'll never use Norton again...there are some better Av's out there and userfriendlyness isn't the most important thing in Internet Security imo...it's very difficult to have it both ways.

But just like everybody else, my box came preinstalled with norton too...and the day I switched Norton, I became active member on security boards ;)

/edit: apparently they improved a lot in the last year so my statement was for 2002-2003 version...and for that means it was the SystemWorks suite.

to answer BigC: nothing wrong at this moment with Norton Antivirus...just some bad experiences that's all...and I don't consider myself as a basher of Norton...just threw my thoughts in the group ;D

[Paranoid2000]

I've used Norton Antivirus 2001 and 2002 on my system and while I encountered no serious problems I would mention the following: LiveUpdate problems - I encountered these and plenty of others have also. AV's have got to be kept up-to-date so an ineffective LiveUpdate means an ineffective AV (and that is probably where most problems regarding undetected malware come from). Bloat - NAV2002's installer weighed in at over 20MB if my memory serves me correctly, a similar size to the current version of Kaspersky Personal Pro for a lot less functionality. Support - either Symantec has one of those email filters that blackhole every incoming email, or they think customer service is something best outsourced to another planet - no emails I sent ever received a response. In addition, support for their other products has been poor - e.g. Norton SpeedDisk in SystemWorks 2000 did not receive an update to work with Win2K SP4, leaving it useless. Other companies have done worse (PowerQuest being a notable example) but I would not wish to spend any further money with companies not prepared to address basic Windows updates. Advertising - the products most heavily advertised are going to offer the worst value for money, be they anti-virus software or anything else. With the Norton pre-installs, one has to ask why computer vendors are bothering to include it - I strongly suspect they get a payment from Symantec for doing so, which would make good business sense (targetting new users) and also explains its higher price.Norton has come a long way since the days of the original Norton Disk Doctor or Norton Desktop for Windows, however I feel that it has been in the wrong direction for most users.

[maddawgz]

sucked the juices rite out my pc !! ???

[TopperID]

{QUOTE-> I realize it is a large program but that doesn't hurt the way it works. <-QUOTE}
It might hurt the way your computer works! If you look at a HJT log of someone with Norton AV & FW you can see the quite ludicrous number of services, auto-runs, BHOs and Toolbars it installs. With all that complexity no wonder it goes wrong (it did with me) and then you are left at the mercy of Symantec's shamelessly bad technical support - some users even pick up the phone and end up paying through the nose for that as well.

What use is Norton's good detection rate if you end up having to uninstall it and buy something else before your licence is up (I did)? Norton is too much of a 'gamble' and therefore deserves a bit of a 'kicking'!

[bsilva]

One of the biggest problem is their updates. We have them currently running on our servers and we are looking at sophos to replace them.

[iwod]

Here is my case... I don't have a proper documented backup for some case I mention here. But this is what i felt and why i dislike them,

Bloat : They add useless junk into their AV everyyear and try to sell a new version out of it.

Resources Heavy : 2005 did a job of reducing it. But 2003/2004 did a much better job in triple the resource usage. So after all it is still heavy.

Slow Reponse time: If Mcafee can do it better. What can't they?

Recent release of Enterprise Symentec was a joke. The ram usuage was even higer than KAV! Not to mention CPU resources nearly triple the previous version.

False marketing: Their are some theory that columnist or magazine writer get paid more for writing a good reviwer on these product. The fact they mention Norton doesn't take up much resources in every review and easiest GUI to use. While all other product who have much lower resources never get mentioned to their advantage!. It is either these people dont know a damn thing or they are writing false review.

Detection rate / Real time monitor: It is good. But That is only when you do a Full system scan. The Real time monitor have poor unpacking engine. And misses a lot of stuff.

Expensive: Why do i have to pay much more why i get NOD32 or even avast for free?? Both did a much better job than Norton. ( Remember norton have a lower detection rate before the current av compartive review. )

But after all. If norton is the only thing you can get / have. Than i see no reason to dump it for the noob. Coz having a Av is better than not having one. Since noob never listen to avast and always think norton is the best. And i got sick and tired of explaning.

Edit: More after reeading Paranoid2000 post. Symantec and never update Liveupdate itself Automatically !!. For 2004/ 2003 and Enterprise i have manucally download it to aviod the Security hole in liveupdate itself. And if you don't knew much about AV. How were you suppose to know that?

[Acadia]

I use Norton and here is my opinion of it: excellent AV, one of the best; incredibly lousy tech support; worst feature, very hard to completely uninstall.

Acadia

[nod32_9]

Why pay more when one can use Avast Home for FREE!

The primary reason SYMC stays at the top is because of advertising. They also pay the big PC vendors $ to bundle the SYMC crap with all new PCs. Since NAV is a royal pain to remove, most people just fork over the $ for the annual subscription.

Let's talk about McAfee if you want to dig up the "best detection" line of argument. McAfee is often priced much lower than NAV. It is the clear winner when compared against PIGGY Norton.

Most custom PC builders wouldn't touch NAV with a 10 ft pole.

[Randy_Bell]

{QUOTE-> Why pay more when one can use Avast Home for FREE!

The primary reason SYMC stays at the top is because of advertising. They also pay the big PC vendors $ to bundle the SYMC crap with all new PCs. Since NAV is a royal pain to remove, most people just fork over the $ for the annual subscription.

Let's talk about McAfee if you want to dig up the "best detection" line of argument. McAfee is often priced much lower than NAV. It is the clear winner when compared against PIGGY Norton.

Most custom PC builders wouldn't touch NAV with a 10 ft pole. <-QUOTE}I see all that BigC has managed to do is to create another thread opportunity for hostiles like you to bash some more .. >:( >:(

[Hard Rocker]

:) I have been using both Norton AV & Firewall for part of 2004. ( It came installed on my new PC ) and now have the 2005 version AV & Firewall. All I can say is, other than their pathetic support ...... ( it's a crap shoot .... depending on who you get on the other end of the phone ) the product has performed well for me.

I also have A2 Personal .... Trojan Hunter ... & the free Ewido scanner mind you ..... just in case !! :D

HR 8)

[Ianb]

{QUOTE-> Recent release of Enterprise Symentec was a joke. The ram usuage was even higer than KAV! Not to mention CPU resources nearly triple the previous version. <-QUOTE}
Once you disable the start up scan it runs like a dream, there is a thread about that here somewhere.

{QUOTE-> Why pay more when one can use Avast Home for FREE! <-QUOTE}
Avast can't touch NAV for detection (2005 version) but I will admit for the value Avast Free and Ewido (paid) is probably a fair alternative.

It all went wrong for NAV late in the 2003 version when it started to introduce HEAVY prog updates and viri (which was targeted to disable the biggest AV out there) became popular.
They got lazy with 2004 which was simply a rebadged 2003 but a LOT HEAVIER. This was when people started to abandon ship and rightly so.

They've made great strides with 2005 and it is back to being a very good AV. Unfortunately (for them) people have moved on and are not keen to go back after past experiences.

I'm not saying anybody should go back but you should at least trial the 2005 version to see the improvements.

NAV REMOVAL ?

ADD REMOVE (Not forgetting Live Update)
Delete any Symantec - NAV folders
Clean registry with Reg Seeker
Easy ;)

[rdsu]

Norton have a very good detection, but I don't like the usage resources and some others things, like GUI problems, LiveUpdate, etc...

If I can find better solutions out there in relation to all the aspects, why using a worse program?

Conclusion: A big company as Norton must have better products to offer to its customers.

[Technodrome]

{QUOTE-> Avast can't touch NAV for detection (2005 version) <-QUOTE}

Heh.Detection rate between avast! and Norton is not far off, as you may think. Avast! certainly can touch Norton and many other av products.

Anyway, Norton does providea good protection.


tECHNODROME

[nod32_9]

Avast has more frequent updates, plus each update is less than 30 K. I think piggy NAV is +300 K.

I have more faith in Avast because it uses a MUCH better update engine. Have seen too many NAV systems with non-functional LIVE UPDATE.

[Ianb]

You only need to look at AV Comparatives to see the difference.

Avast 90.81% NAV 98.31%

You can talk about lightness, updates etc etc etc all day long but it is a fact that Norton wins hands down on detection.

IM NOT KNOCKING AVAST just telling it as it is.

[nod32_9]

Hate to say this, but the AVERAGE user removes an application via Windows' Add/Remove screen. Since NAV is geared toward mainstream users, it SHOULD uninstall properly without resorting to a registry cleaner or deleting other NAV-related folders/applications!

[Randy_Bell]

{QUOTE-> Recently, by friend had a stupendous leakage while running Norton AV (it came with his laptop that was purchased about a month ago). Given what I saw, after running Ewido, TDS-3, and KAV, there is absolutely no way I could ever recommend Norton to a friend or acquaintence (in this particular case I recommend KAV 5.0 MP3, RegDefend, and ProcessGuard, which he adopted). There is just no way. I couldn't possible ignore my own incidents or that of my friends. He was shocked to see the keyloggers and other trojans on his system that KAV, Ewido, and TDS-3 were able to detect. <-QUOTE}But this is just a lone isolated instance, of one particular set of problems, and very small [tiny actually] bit of malware -- which is why we have objective tests which use a large testbed of malware. Granted, because of this lone instance you are, from the sounds of it, forever negatively colored in your opinion against one particular AV. Which is understandable, it is human nature .. and something I have seen many times now.

Also I think it was clear from the other thread where you discussed this instance in more detail, that: (1) the other security products were only detecting parts of this malware; (2) some of this malware was spyware; (3) only versions of NAV 2004-2005 are detecting expanded threats including spyware, and it was not clear what version of NAV was on this system. I still think the latest NAV 2005, if installed and configured properly on that box, might have been detecting at least as much [bits & pieces] of this malware as the other security products you tested. But then since I never got any samples to look at I cannot know for sure but can only speculate.

Anyway, besides that lone instance of your friend's, there are other instances such as this one I came across at the TH Forum, where NAV is detecting a stealthed keylogger trojan that other security products [or at least TH] are not presently seeing: [b]Help needed With keylogger.trojan (http://forum.misec.net/board/TrojanHunter/1116526266) -- I mention that because it seems to be a similar type of malware that you said NAV was missing on your friend's box.

{QUOTE-> Others may choose to recommend Norton AV based upon how well it has done on tests. This is, of course, valid. But I couldn't face my friends if I ever recommended Norton and one of them had the same problems as the ones I have described. <-QUOTE}I don't recommend NAV to anyone. I recommend to folks that they find the right security software that works well for them and their systems. Since we each have a unique blend of hardware and software, we will each find different mixes of security software that work best for us.

What I do find myself spending more time doing, what I find a bit troubling, and what [I think] BigC started this thread to discuss -- I find myself offering, or trying to offer, reasoned rebuttal to the many "potshots" that folks are taking at NAV these days. It does seem to have become the "chic" thing to do -- to be anti-Norton makes you part of the "in-crowd" in security circles these days, or so it seems. What BigC has postulated, and I agree, is [other than pure bigotry and prejudice], "Why?" -- Why is it necessary to treat Norton like a "disease" these days, and speak of NAV like it can't detect a damn thing and it will if you use it let in all kinds of malware and it is no good? Especially considering that it continues to hold its own in objective testing.

This is simply not true, NAV is a good protection, a good AV. All software, including security software, has problems; malware can get by any AV, given unique circumstances; instances of malware getting in are probably more noticed with NAV because of its market share and ubiquitous presence, but all AVs are capable of anomalous behavior and apparent "failure"; as Blue said in the other thread, this can happen with any AV in use.

{QUOTE-> What I do is this: I recommend the setup that I have chosen, because it is the one that I honestly feel provides excellent protection. Of course, others may have completely different experiences as myself and will recommend differently. Some people recommend Hondas and others recommned Toyotas. And so the world turns. :) <-QUOTE}I have no quarrel with that; recommend what you feel is appropriate and what works for you, and what leaves you with a good conscience in trying to help your colleagues. As I say, I don't really "push" or recommend particular software, only, I find mine a consistently defensive posture these days, warding off all the unfair nasty attacks on NAV. [Not implying yours is one of them]. Take Care Everyone ..

[Technodrome]

{QUOTE-> You only need to look at AV Comparatives to see the difference.

Avast 90.81% NAV 98.31%
<-QUOTE}

That’s what I did. But you said "Avast can't touch NAV for detection" and I see less then 8% difference. :)

Back on OT.


tECHNODROME

[nod32_9]

Yeah...more statistical data to digest. NAV is worthless if Live Update decides to go on vacation. The true test of an AV is how well it performs in the real world.

The best AV is the USER. Splitting hair over a few % in detection rate shows me you have very little understanding of what makes a good AV.

[Ianb]

{QUOTE-> Yeah...more statistical data to digest. NAV is worthless if Live Update decides to go on vacation. The true test of an AV is how well it performs in the real world.

The best AV is the USER. Splitting hair over a few % in detection rate shows me you have very little understanding of what makes a good AV. <-QUOTE}

Silly me .......... splitting hairs over a difference (in NAVs favour) of 28,929 samples :-X

[bigc73542]

{QUOTE-> (posted by Vikorr) <-QUOTE}
http://www.claymania.com/tests-trojan.html
http://www.anti-trojan-software-rev...ection-test.htm


the claymania report is almost five years old and the other link leads to a report that is over two years old. Not something I am going to put my trust in.

[bigc73542]

I am not an av expert in the actual meaning of the term but I install and try probably as many av's as anyone on this forum, sometimes three or four a day checking different aspects on a certain av. That said here is my take on removing norton from a computer. Uninstalling norton products is a one step process if you know what you are doing. It is really very simple., you just let the norton product uninstall itself. Not through the add/remove feature. but that is for another thread.

I want to thank you all for your input on this thread. It could have turned into a flame war but I am proud of the members here for posting their experiences and keeping it on topic. I think what has come of this is that Nav has a good detection rate, but it is known for having update problems and it is a very intrusive app seeing as how large it is and how deeply it is installed. And for the average user it can be very troublesome to remove at times. Again I want to thank you all for your participation.

bigc

[iwod]

{QUOTE-> You only need to look at AV Comparatives to see the difference.

Avast 90.81% NAV 98.31%

You can talk about lightness, updates etc etc etc all day long but it is a fact that Norton wins hands down on detection.

IM NOT KNOCKING AVAST just telling it as it is. <-QUOTE}

That is when norton decide to add so many signature at once..... all the test before Norton have not been great.

And the startup scan. Even if it is disable it still a hell a lot more resources more tha SAV9. For that sort of resources i get much better protected by Mcafee Enterprise V8i.

[mnosteele]

{QUOTE-> (first of all I am not supporting use of this program. that said) I am really getting annoyed by all of the self nominated norton antivirus bashers. I realize it is a large program but that doesn't hurt the way it works.

check the links and please tell me what is wrong with the detection rates of norton.

VB (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?symantec.xml)

AV-comparatives (http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2005_02.php)

West Coast Check-Mark (http://www.westcoastlabs.org/cm-av-products.asp?Comp_ID=23&Cat_ID=1) <-QUOTE}

The problem is that these tests are not real world. I am not posting this to "bash" Norton, rather share my experiences that I see almost daily. In the past 4 days I have seen how poor Norton's detection rate is, I see this routinely, but in the past few days I have 2 examples of how poor it is.

First a client brought his pc to me to clean it up, he said he thought he had a bad virus but he had Norton 2005 installed and up to date and said he already scanned but still had problems. I figured I would use his Norton and make sure it was up to date and set all of the settings to the highest level and scan...... but I couldn't Norton gave me nothing but errors when trying to update. So first I used Ad-Aware, SpyBot, SpySweeper and HijackThis.... all found multiple items. I then tried to update Norton again... no go. I got so fed up with it I uninstalled it and installed Kaspersky Personal 5..... it found 19 viruses and the problems were solved. I know some of you will say "Norton was corrupt, that's why it didn't detect those viruses"..... how did it become corrupt in the first place?

Then this morning I went to a business that had called and said they needed their workstations "cleaned up". They too had Norton 2005 on all of the workstations and it was up to date and working properly, it was set to scan weekly which it had done for the past month. After I used Ad-Aware, SpyBot, SpySweeper and HijackThis I uninstalled Norton and installed Kaspersky Personal 5...... it found 87 viruses on one of the workstations and 1 virus on another, the other 2 were clean. A number of the 87 were in the email databases but not all of them. Needless to say they were amazed and purchased 4 licenses for KAV.

Before you ask..... no I don't know the names of all the viruses, but that is irrelevant, the bottom line is they were still getting infected with multiple viruses using Norton. I see this all the time, everyone wants to dispute it, but it's true. Anyone who works on computers for a living will tell you how many times they see this. If you are a home user and use Norton you may never have a single issue, but if you see multiple computers a week with Norton installed you will see how poorly it actually performs.

Also, uninstalling Norton.... it's not as easy as add/remove programs. Next time you uninstall it go to your device manager and select "display hidden devices" and see how many drivers Norton leaves behind.... about 4-5, not to mention the files on your hard drive or registry entries. I think this is one of the main reasons people have conflicts with other antivirus programs after uninstalling Norton.... the left over drivers. I know there is no program that uninstalls perfectly without leaving a trace, but 4-5 drivers is ridiculous.

Something else to think about....... take a look at any forum that helps a lot with HijackThis logs. Take a look at the logs and see how badly infected these computers are then take a look at what antivirus program they are running.......... 9 times out of 10....... Norton.

:)

[bigc73542]

I owned my own computer repair and custom built computers shop for twelve years plus and never saw the problems with norton that you see. Not everyone is going to have the same results with any av. But symantec would not be as popular as it is if it was as bad as the experience that you saw. Even with all of their enormeous advertising budget if their product was as bad as you say they would already be bankrupt. Just try and advertise how good a Yugo automobile is, spend hundred of thousands of dollars in advertising and see if people are stupid enough to buy them. The same thing goes with any product, if it is not good people will not buy it regardless how it is advertised. It doesn't take very long for word of mouth to spread the news about a bad product. And they just don't last long. Symantec's profits are going up every year and that is not because people are stupid and buying junk.

and as I posted earlier, it really is easy to get rid of norton apps if you know how.

[Acadia]

{QUOTE-> they are running.......... 9 times out of 10....... Norton. <-QUOTE}
That's because 9 out of 10 people run Norton. (That's not exactly correct but then again, neither is your "9 out of 10").

No AV should be relied upon to remove Adware and Spyware, at least not yet; their specialty are viruses, and too many AV are biting off more than they can chew by also trying to cover Adware/Spyware, heck, even the Adware/Spyware programs miss almost 50% of everything that's out there. (And THAT is an accurate figure).

And with most pcs out there using Norton than naturally most problem pcs are going to have Norton on them. Most pcs with problems run Windows, hmmm, I wonder why Windows is on so many pcs having problems?

However one thing I will say about Norton, there is no excuse for that company to make it so hard to uninstall; for most folks reading these forums it is probably no problem, I never have any problem uninstalling Norton, but most folks using Norton do not frequent this forum and do have that problem and I must admit that there is no excuse for this.

Acadia

[mnosteele]

bigc73542 when was the last time you really worked on computers? The reason I ask is because Norton 2003 and older didn't have the problems 2004 and 2005 have. I used to use Norton for all of my clients with NAV 2003 and before, then 4 clients in one month were infected with viruses using Norton so I searched for a better product and I found KAV. I can honestly say I have never had a client call with a virus issue when using KAV.

There is a reason why so many people use Norton.... it comes preinstalled on almost every OEM pc out there and the average user figures "hey it's already installed so why not keep it, besides it must be the best because I see it everywhere".

If KAV or NOD32 were preinstalled on as many OEM pcs as Norton was you would have half of the viruses spreading like they do.

:)

[richrf]

Hi BigC,

My computer repair store only recommends McAfee because of poor experiences with Norton. I had McAfee for a short time after the computer repair guys helped me out with my Norton failures a year and a half ago, but after visiting this forum, I settled on KAV.

It would be interesting to hear from more computer repair guys to hear about their experiences - whether it be Norton, McAfee, or otherwise.

Rich

[Acadia]

{QUOTE-> I can honestly say I have never had a client call with a virus issue when using KAV. <-QUOTE}
I BELIEVE YOU. What percentage of pcs out there use KAV compared to Norton, good grief! I am willing to bet next week's pay check that 99% of the average pc users out there have never even heard of KAV so naturally the odds of you finding a pc with a KAV problem would be almost non-existent.

Acadia

[mnosteele]

I guess I should rephrase what I wrote above "....because Norton 2003 and older didn't have the problems 2004 and 2005 have". One of the reasons for so many problems is spyware, personally I consider viruses, worms, trojan, spyware, adware etc. all the same.... malicious so thereby termed "malware". I think it's a cop out to say that antivirus programs shouldn't detect spyware. What is the definition of a virus? Software that maliciously does something to your pc, so why shouldn't your AV program detect and remove all malware? I mean spyware, adware etc. are the viruses of today, years ago they didn't exist and neither did trojans or worms, but nobody ever says "AV programs shouldn't detect trojans and worms".

Honestly, KAV has done it.... very little malware slips past it, it isn't a resource hog either and it doesn't have 5-6 services running. If they can do it (and NOD32, I don't use it but I know it's very light on resources) then why can't Norton do it?

:)

[iwod]

I have actually see one of those situation only 2 week ago. Where the computer is clearly infected but norton fail to clean it. Although the virus doesn't seems to be "working" when norton is running. Norton is only good when you run regula full system Scan.

But then i thought of another reason. May be because there is so many people using norton ( especially noob ) that is why we see much more cases of norton being incapable or defending? ( Again with that said i am sure norton Realtime monitor, unpacker is quite poor compare to others )

[mnosteele]

{QUOTE-> I BELIEVE YOU. What percentage of pcs out there use KAV compared to Norton, good grief! I am willing to bet next week's pay check that 99% of the average pc users out there have never even heard of KAV so naturally the odds of you finding a pc with a KAV problem would be almost non-existent.

Acadia <-QUOTE}

You misunderstood me...... I refering to all of the clients that used Norton, McAfee, AVG etc. that call me with virus issues. Then I setup KAV for them and never have another virus related issue.

:)

[WSFuser]

heres my general opinions on norton. it offers good detection rates with viruses and fair rates with trojans. its on demand scan is slow and its resident scan isnt too bad. for me, norton is pain to uninstall and sometimes just to install. and like acadia said, people use norton because it comes with their pc. the average consumer may not go out and buy an AV much less a firewall however because its heavily advertised theyll end up choosing Norton anyways but maybe mcafee. as for me, i have used norton for several years (2001-2004) but as i started learning more about computer security i started looking for alternatives and trying various programs. currently i use nod32 because its very light on resources and its http scanner gives it a slight edge in catching malware in realtime. i have become familiar with its options and gui so it isnt very complex for me.

[bigc73542]

{QUOTE-> bigc73542 when was the last time you really worked on computers? The reason I ask is because Norton 2003 and older didn't have the problems 2004 and 2005 have. I used to use Norton for all of my clients with NAV 2003 and before, then 4 clients in one month were infected with viruses using Norton so I searched for a better product and I found KAV. I can honestly say I have never had a client call with a virus issue when using KAV.

There is a reason why so many people use Norton.... it comes preinstalled on almost every OEM pc out there and the average user figures "hey it's already installed so why not keep it, besides it must be the best because I see it everywhere".

If KAV or NOD32 were preinstalled on as many OEM pcs as Norton was you would have half of the viruses spreading like they do.

:) <-QUOTE}


It really has not been all that long since I sold my shop. less than a year But it seems like I am busier now than before. Putting together a lot of custom comps. And I leave it up to the client to tell me what av they want. If they really don't have a clue I will recomend one. It seems really silly to me the way a lot of people react like you slapped their mother if you say one negative word about their antivirus program. It is only a program, get a life. If you want to say anything bad about my av I don't mind at all. For now or at least for the next ten hours I am running Panda Platinum Internet Security 2005. Well I have learned all I had planned in this thread good and bad so this will be my final post in this thread.

Thank you all gentlemen I really enjoyed the discussion.

bigc

[bigc73542]

{QUOTE-> I BELIEVE YOU. What percentage of pcs out there use KAV compared to Norton, good grief! I am willing to bet next week's pay check that 99% of the average pc users out there have never even heard of KAV so naturally the odds of you finding a pc with a KAV problem would be almost non-existent.

Acadia <-QUOTE}


I would fully have to agree with that statement. ;)

[The Hammer]

I do not use KAV. However as I have seen on other web sites where someone will say " I switched to X because it picked up X # of viruses that Kav did not on my system." As has been pointed out elsewhere on these forums you can say that about any (pick one) antivirus. None are 100%

[Patrician]

{QUOTE-> I see all that BigC has managed to do is to create another thread opportunity for hostiles like you to bash some more .. >:( >:( <-QUOTE}

Not really. Sorry but in tests we have run at work NAV comes a very poor second to KAV, AVK, BD Pro, F-Secure, Avast and NOD32. An on-demand scan is pretty good at detection but it's resident scanner is appalling.

[nod32_9]

I have converted all of my NAV customers to McAfee corporate, NOD32, or KAV. My #1 gripe with NAV is the DEAD LiveUpdate application. People don't know that there is a problem until windows comes to a crawl.

Most IT Pros don't like NAV because there are better alternatives out there at a lower cost.

[The Hammer]

{QUOTE-> Not really. Sorry but in tests we have run at work NAV comes a very poor second to KAV, AVK, BD Pro, F-Secure, Avast and NOD32. An on-demand scan is pretty good at detection but it's resident scanner is appalling. <-QUOTE}
To bad a Major test site has not rigged up a on access or "resident" test. If I test with a bias, the results will usually reflect what I expect to find.

[dvk01]

My experiences with NAV are similar to many here

It comes preinstalled on many OEM systems so users carry on using it. BUT and it's a big BUT if they had Norton 2002 or 3 on the computer, they just update the virus database if they remember to and Norton with it's quaint ways doesn't update the program without you buying the latest versions.

Most of the other AV's, either auto update the program automatically during the course of your licence or warn you of a newer version to install without paying extra for it and with Norton, you normally cannot do an OTT install of a newer version over an old one without major problems

Because so many people have outdated versions of Norton on the computer with known security holes, the malware authors know about them and target them. That is why we see so many HJT logs with severely infected computers

It's OK saying Norton or any other AV gets good results in lab tests, BUT it's real world experiences that count

In a lab the software is set up to it's optimum level with all tweaks and settings applied , In the real world, the sort of user who has a preinstalled OEM norton hasn't got the faintest idea of how or what to set

A friend of mine who is a sys tech/manager for very large organisation with several thousand computers always swore by Norton and had it installed on all computers, ppersonal and company.

Now due to so many problems with 2004/2005 and increased costs and poor real world results has changed his personal computers to KAV and is recommending the company do the same

Norton live update is the biggest joke with weekly updates only and major problems with that

Advertising is Nortons strong point and in the same way that there are cheaper and better breakfast cereals or tins of beans than certain well known brands if you ask anyone about beans you will always be told Heinz or with cornflakes Kellogs solely due to massive advertising, regardless of quality or taste

[Kye-U]

5 Years ago, when I had Norton, it usually alerted me when it found a virus. I couldn't remove the virus.

So I uninstalled Norton, and did an online virus scan. It found 14 trojans/worms/viruses that Norton had "missed".

Don't know if NAV has improved since then, but I'm never touching it again.

[Vikorr]

Just a comment on the percentage detection rates.

90% vs 98% detection - may only be 8%
but 90% is 5 times less effective than 98%

98% vs 99.99% detection - only 2%
but 98% is 20 times less effective than 99.99%

90% is 100 times less effective than 99.99%

[Howard]

I dumped NAV 2003 not because of its inadequacies as an a-v, but because of what I regarded as the despicable conduct of Symantec:seeking to exploit the release of XP SP2 security centre, they failed to release compatibility updates for versions earlier than 2004 and simultaneously remained silent as to whether any updates would be released for earlier versions. I regarded this as little more than a grubby attempt to force people to upgrade to what was then the current version - 2004 - and as this coincided with the expiry of my subscription to NAV 2003, I expressed my view with my credit card and took out a three year license with NOD32. The startling improvement in performance was unanticipated, but entirely welcome.

I note since those seedy money-grubbing few months, Symantec did release compatibility updates for earlier versions of NAV, but I can envisage no circumstance in which I would again assist Symantec in its profit grinding by purchasing any of its products. So I agree with the topic, NAV isn't so bad, but the parent company Symantec is.

[RejZoR]

My cousin had NAV2004 on his machine and i said,fine it's a free version (he got full license). But after like month,he called me that he can't start it and that weird stuff is going on on his PC. He's ofcourse hi risk user because he doesn't know much about malware and stuff. So i installed KAV on his machine. It's nearly 6 months after that and he never called me about malware problems.
This sunday i'll probably have chance to check it out if there is any malware on his PC. I strongly belive that i'll find 0 (zero).

[RejZoR]

{QUOTE-> Just a comment on the percentage detection rates.

90% vs 98% detection - may only be 8%
but 90% is 5 times less effective than 98%

98% vs 99.99% detection - only 2%
but 98% is 20 times less effective than 99.99%

90% is 100 times less effective than 99.99% <-QUOTE}

Your math is wrong.
90% is 100 times less effective than 99.99%
Thats 9.99% difference (nearly 10% out of 100 can't be 100 times).

[Paranoid2000]

{QUOTE-> ...I uninstalled it and installed Kaspersky Personal 5..... it found 19 viruses and the problems were solved....I uninstalled Norton and installed Kaspersky Personal 5...... it found 87 viruses on one of the workstations and 1 virus on another, the other 2 were clean. <-QUOTE}One small criticism I would level at Kaspersky is that it tags everything it detects with the term "virus" even when it does not apply. The malware it detects can include leaktests, phishing emails and joke programs (if you have the extended database in use). As such, it can somewhat exaggerate the impact of its results.

As a quick note, I've had a couple of cases where I've recommended people use AVG Free to replace Norton - the first full scan with AVG in those cases turned up a number of adware/malware items (trojan dropper downloaders especially) that Norton ignored. Whether that was due to poor detection or Symantec not targetting adware/malware at the time, I can't be sure.

[Vikorr]

Rej

For clarification, my maths was indeed wrong, I did not carry the zero's correctly.


90% is 1000 times less effective than 99.99
ie 90% misses 1000 virii per 10,000 virii
99.99% misses 1 virus per 10,000

same error in maths for the others - 98% is 200 times less effective than 99.99%

[rjbsec]

This thread really bothered me as I have relied on NIS for a number of years and I thought that it was doing really well. I currently have NIS 2004 with up-to-date subscription, last full scan done on 11/5/2005, (clear), and definitions up-to-date.
Using a sig link from this thread I went to the "Panda" website and carried out an online scan, with the following result, (some references removed for confidentiality):-
{QUOTE-> Incident Status Location

Virus:W32/Mytob.CX.worm Disinfected Personal Folders\Deleted Items\YOUR EMAIL ACCOUNT ACCESS IS RESTRICTED\xftnh.zip[xftnh.doc .scr]
Virus:W32/Mytob.CX.worm Disinfected Personal Folders\Deleted Items\Notice:***Your email account will be suspended***\IMPORTANT.zip[IMPORTANT.scr]
Virus:W32/Mytob.CX.worm Disinfected Personal Folders\Deleted Items\Your email account access is restricted\IMPORTANT.zip[IMPORTANT.htm .pif]
Virus:W32/Mytob.CX.worm Disinfected Personal Folders\Deleted Items\Notice:***Your email account will be suspended***\email-doc.zip[email-doc.pif]
Virus:W32/Mytob.CX.worm Disinfected Personal Folders\Deleted Items\Notice:***Your email account will be suspended***\email-text.zip[email-text.htm .scr]
Virus:Exploit/iFrame Disinfected Personal Folders\Sent Items\RE: The Conversion\MSG_RTF.TXT
Virus:Exploit/iFrame Disinfected Archive Folders\Sent Items\RE: The Conversion\MSG_RTF.TXT
Virus:W32/Mytob.CX.worm Disinfected Personal Folders\Deleted Items\YOUR EMAIL ACCOUNT ACCESS IS RESTRICTED\xftnh.zip[xftnh.doc .scr]
Virus:W32/Mytob.CX.worm Disinfected Personal Folders\Deleted Items\Notice:***Your email account will be suspended***\IMPORTANT.zip[IMPORTANT.scr]
Virus:W32/Mytob.CX.worm Disinfected Personal Folders\Deleted Items\Your email account access is restricted\IMPORTANT.zip[IMPORTANT.htm .pif]
Virus:W32/Mytob.CX.worm Disinfected Personal Folders\Deleted Items\Notice:***Your email account will be suspended***\email-doc.zip[email-doc.pif]
Virus:W32/Mytob.CX.worm Disinfected Personal Folders\Deleted Items\Notice:***Your email account will be suspended***\email-text.zip[email-text.htm .scr]
Virus:Exploit/iFrame Disinfected Personal Folders\Sent Items\RE: The Conversion\MSG_RTF.TXT
Virus:Exploit/iFrame Disinfected Archive Folders\Sent Items\RE: The Conversion\MSG_RTF.TXT
Virus:W32/Mytob.CX.worm Disinfected Personal Folders\Deleted Items\YOUR EMAIL ACCOUNT ACCESS IS RESTRICTED\xftnh.zip[xftnh.doc .scr]
Virus:W32/Mytob.CX.worm Disinfected Personal Folders\Deleted Items\Notice:***Your email account will be suspended***\IMPORTANT.zip[IMPORTANT.scr]
Virus:W32/Mytob.CX.worm Disinfected Personal Folders\Deleted Items\Your email account access is restricted\IMPORTANT.zip[IMPORTANT.htm .pif]
Virus:W32/Mytob.CX.worm Disinfected Personal Folders\Deleted Items\Notice:***Your email account will be suspended***\email-doc.zip[email-doc.pif]
Virus:W32/Mytob.CX.worm Disinfected Personal Folders\Deleted Items\Notice:***Your email account will be suspended***\email-text.zip[email-text.htm .scr]
Virus:Exploit/iFrame Disinfected Personal Folders\Sent Items\RE: The Conversion\MSG_RTF.TXT
Virus:Exploit/iFrame Disinfected Archive Folders\Sent Items\RE: The Conversion\MSG_RTF.TXT
Virus:W32/Sobig.E Disinfected
Virus:Exploit/iFrame Disinfected Personal Folders\Sent Items\RE: The Conversion\MSG_RTF.TXT
Virus:Exploit/iFrame Disinfected
Virus:W32/Klez.I Disinfected
Virus:VBS/Bagle.Q Disinfected
Virus:VBS/Bagle.Q Disinfected
Virus:VBS/Bagle.Q Disinfected
Virus:W32/Netsky.D.worm Disinfected
Virus:W32/Netsky.B.worm Disinfected
Virus:Exploit/iFrame Disinfected <-QUOTE}
:o
I feel betrayed!
Is what I see as bad as it seems?
Did NIS really miss those common viruses or is Panda duping me in some way into believing that I have a problem and those are just "footprints" of viruses that NIS has previously removed?
Something tells me that I need to take action - do you agree?

[quexx88]

It seems like it's detecting old things in folders for deleted items, which don't really pose any risk to you.

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> I feel betrayed!
Is what I see as bad as it seems?
Did NIS really miss those common viruses or is Panda duping me in some way into believing that I have a problem and those are just "footprints" of viruses that NIS has previously removed?
Something tells me that I need to take action - do you agree? <-QUOTE}rjbsec,

It probably isn't as bad as it seems.

First, go over NIS in detail. What settings are you using? Are they designed to pick-up what is seemingly left behind here?

Second, what are the locations of these files? Are they in a ready to pounce state or are they stuffed in an archive/restore point of some sort? Do you scan these? Are these really the key operational files or simply stuff left behind from a messy cleaning? Simply because a competing product identifies a number of "malware" files, be certain they are the malware files and not something innocuous that came along for the ride.

Lastly, are any of them in a temporary cache?

Blue

[The Hammer]

{QUOTE-> 5 Years ago, when I had Norton, it usually alerted me when it found a virus. I couldn't remove the virus.

So I uninstalled Norton, and did an online virus scan. It found 14 trojans/worms/viruses that Norton had "missed".

Don't know if NAV has improved since then, but I'm never touching it again. <-QUOTE}
The answer is yes it has Improved. It is always evolving , just as other antivirus products do. I use NOD ,but not because of detection removal issues related to my previous product which was NAV 2003. NAV 2003 was a excellent product. I have noted where KAV users have screemed blue murder wiht KAV's use of ADS.

[Hard Rocker]

:) Along with NAV 2005 & Norton Firewall I also have the BitDefender free scanner & Trend Micro House Call on line scanner.

According to ALL 3 programs ...... my system is clean !!
So I guess Norton can't be that bad ........ right ? ;)

HR 8)

[rjbsec]

{QUOTE-> rjbsec,

It probably isn't as bad as it seems.

First, go over NIS in detail. What settings are you using? Are they designed to pick-up what is seemingly left behind here? <-QUOTE}
Confess I'm not sure here, bit puzzled om what settings I can check/change to establish this.
{QUOTE->
Second, what are the locations of these files? Are they in a ready to pounce state or are they stuffed in an archive/restore point of some sort? Do you scan these? Are these really the key operational files or simply stuff left behind from a messy cleaning? Simply because a competing product identifies a number of "malware" files, be certain they are the malware files and not something innocuous that came along for the ride.

Lastly, are any of them in a temporary cache?

Blue <-QUOTE}

All files are scanned and I think you are right, they do seem to be in archive etc and not "ready to pounce", I guess I was expecting NIS to remove everything, though in truth it doesn't does it - if a virus email is received it cleans/quarantines the infection and lets the email pass through. Some are probaby those I've just noticed in the Norton Quarantine Backup file, (just deleted them).
Guess the lesson comes from Corporal Jones in "Dad's Army" .... "Don't panic, Don't panic"! ;D

[Don Pelotas]

{QUOTE-> One small criticism I would level at Kaspersky is that it tags everything it detects with the term "virus" even when it does not apply. The malware it detects can include leaktests, phishing emails and joke programs (if you have the extended database in use). As such, it can somewhat exaggerate the impact of its results. <-QUOTE}
That's not entirely true, those you are talking about are clearly detected as "Not-A-Virus:Riskware". If you follow the link in the screenshot, you then get this explanation: http://www.viruslist.com/en/viruses/encyclopedia?chapter=152540533 on what this catagory contains. :)......But it can be annoying, if it's a program that you've used for long time and feel is safe to use. ;)

In the next version of Personal it's easy to exclude these as you can see in the screenshot too. :)

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> Confess I'm not sure here, bit puzzled om what settings I can check/change to establish this. <-QUOTE}It has been some time since I used Norton, so I'm not quite sure what options you have. The point that I was trying to make, and should have been explicit on, is that if the alternate scanners were set to a much tighter security level (for example, something akin to the post above showing KAV detecting riskware), additional flags are to be expected.
{QUOTE-> All files are scanned and I think you are right, they do seem to be in archive etc and not "ready to pounce", I guess I was expecting NIS to remove everything, though in truth it doesn't does it - if a virus email is received it cleans/quarantines the infection and lets the email pass through. Some are probaby those I've just noticed in the Norton Quarantine Backup file, (just deleted them).
Guess the lesson comes from Corporal Jones in "Dad's Army" .... "Don't panic, Don't panic"! ;D <-QUOTE}Yes, it always pays to draw a breath and survey the situation. There are some places that you simply do not really want an AV walking through with impunity. In part, that may be what you are seeing here.

Blue

[bigc73542]

rjbsec. most of what is in the log looks as if it could just be remnants of old removed stuff but these were disinfected by panda. It looks as if norton missed these

[bigc73542]

Plus these two

[tuatara]

Almost All the pro's and contra's have been posted here already.

But if you look at the history, and i was using the first versions
of ALL PETER Norton tools, then i must say that they were the best
in the old computerdays.
But when Symantec took over the show it did not get better as it used to be each year.
But ..Larger,slower,worse and more expensive.
all kind of Symantec #%^$# .. things where added, that you don't want.
and instead of a new program each year, we no get a
extra diskusage and modules added to the product.
(like Microsoft office 2025 that is 5 terrabytes in size)
This makes NAV the slowest most computer resources eating AV there is in the world.
And the advise to add a Anti Trojan is very funny.
If you are buying, buy an extra pc to run NAV).

Please if you use NAV, try to deinstall en see what is left behind
(updater etc. search directories and registry).

after cleaning try another virusscanner like NOD32 and see how fast
a full scan is, and you can work with your pc at the same time (those few minutes) and don't need to wait until the next morning.

Since Symantec has the best Marketing department in the world
for (AV's) it is the most expensive (except Sophos but you can't compair those two). and most easy to find in the shops.
" and when you see it that much, it must be good ... :>) "

That is why every computer magazine is testing NAV and not NOD32 or
Sophos etc. etc.

And what about this, how is it possible that any small/large computermagazine
can get a database of virii (virusses) that are NOT know,
by the Top 10 virusscanners for there tests ?????

And why is it, that if you take some time, you can find a
tests result with a 'best AV for 2004 or 2005' for every AV you can think of?

And why is it, that if i or my colleagues scan computers of our customers
(that were used for a long time without reinstalling the OS..)
with any other AV then they (customers) are using we always find virii ?

And how about other malware trojans/spyware/adware/phising/firewall/Spam/browser hijackers etc. etc. ?

Which programs can you use together without too much overlap
or even worse conflicts?

One customer of me used:
Tiny Personal Firewall 2005 Pro
Processguard
NOD32
Spybot Search and Destroy
Regrun 4.1 Gold
Regdefend
Spy Sweeper
Boclean
Trojan Hunter
Ewido
Mail Washer Pro
Counter Spy
Ad-Aware Pro
Kaspersy 4.5 (only for on-demand)
A2 squared
acronis True Image (for backup)
Crypto Suite
Password Depot
And some security tools that i can't mention here..
how do you mean paranoia?

Perhaps we only need a better OS,
With all the OS-es i've worked with only Windows Xp has so many Security Problems.
1 because it was made by a company that looked at security
only from a marketing point of view
2: Because there are so more copies in use then every other OS.

Of course this is my personal opinion.

worst case scenario:
Within a few years, all the large Companies in this field will be buying other companies (products) to build security suites...
and only the largest top 3 will get the largest marketshare.
And sell there COMPLETE SUITE for lots of money in the shops
on each corner.

sorry i am getting to old for this ...
;D

[tuatara]

Virus:W32/Netsky.B.worm version not detected ??

That is very funny, and can't be true,
because that is one the most active virusses at this moment.
Look at the top10 of this moment ...

See:
http://www.malwarefighters.info/0722_virusnews.php

So i can't imagine that there is 1 virusscanner in the world that can't find
these!

:-\

[bigc73542]

It looks as if panda online scan found it. ;)

[iwod]

um............ sorry to bring up a topic that is already conclusive. But wanted to point out i am on my 2nd computer this week installed with norton and have so far 4 trojan detected by Ewido. ........

[Acadia]

Are you sure that weren't just third-party cookies? What were the names of those four Trojans?

Acadia

[iwod]

{QUOTE-> Are you sure that weren't just third-party cookies? What were the names of those four Trojans?

Acadia <-QUOTE}
i dont have it with me anymore. Fixed and hand it back to my friend. But i am sure it isn't cookies becoz if i included cookies than it would be >150...

He need it tomorrow to present ( I was thinking with a machine like that? )
So i quickly fix it for him.

[richrf]

Hi iwod and Acadia,

iwod's experience closes mirrors my own recent experience with my friend's computers.

My own analysis is this: Norton's suite of products are extremely complex and somehow has "breakdowns" under certain circumstances that are difficult to isolate and replicate. This would not be unheard of because where there is great complexity there is generally more chances for inherent failures (Murphy's Law).

For this reason, I usually feel more comfortable with products that have less complex architectures with a "point focus" on a singular problem - i.e best of breed as opposed to "integrated suites".

I think Norton AV, over the years, has probably grown to complex to predict its behavior in a multiude of environments, and because of this there are huge breakdowns under specific conditions, which are especially likely to happen because of Norton's complex architecture and its large base of users.

My opinion is that since it is difficult to predict Norton's behavior, it therefore has an inherently larger risk associated with it. This is why I left it.

Rich

[bigc73542]

Well since I started this thread I figured it was only right that I run Norton so I can give my realtime experiences. I installed systemworks 2005 and Norton firewall 2005 today. It is a little early to give my report but so far I am very surprised, it takes a bit of Hdd but what the heck. I have over 100 gigs free so space is not a problem. It runs very light on my system so far and when I am running a full scan I can still browse the web and run other apps with no slowdown at all which is a pleasant surprise.

bigc

[Wake2]

My first experience with Norton was when
it came with the first computer I bought
in 1995, and aside from occasional buggy
live updates requiring a reinstall I had
no problems until 2004.

The NIS2004 version I had major problems
with from time I installed it, contacted
Symantec got a standard automated response
and no follow up, tried the search feature
at their website, which was useless, but
when I called them I received surprisingly
good phone support and a week later a live
update was issued which solved my problem.

Than through work I was offered Mcafee8.0i
and at first scan it detected some trojans
that norton had missed and what that taught
me was that no anti virus is perfect.

I have installed Norton 2005 products for
my mother, my grandmother, and my sister,
none had any computer experience, and I
maintain their computers, and what I have
noticed is the 2005 versions seem faster,
the gui opens faster, on demand scans run
close to the same on all, and for some
reason it seems to me that NIS 2005 uses
more resources than SystemsWorks2005, and
there have been some problems with the live
update modules on all, and on one my sisters
computer three trojans managed to get past
norton and were removed by ewido.

For other family members I have installed
McAfee home versions, (their choice) and
on those computers there have been no
problems with live updates, and really
no noticable impact on system resources
and no problems with viruses or trojans.

On my wifes laptop I installed Nod32, and
on another computer she uses to play a on
line game I installed kav personal and both
have been performing well.

I know many of you here are computer experts
with far more knowledge than I but I wanted
to let you know my families experience with
Norton and which overall has been a good one.

bigc thanks for starting this thread and I look
forward to reading your report.


Wake

[Hard Rocker]

Hi Wake, :)

I have both Norton 2005 AV & Firewall. To date I've had no problems with the live update feature. However, being on dial up I had problems with both AV & Firewall deactivating & having to reregister them when I first installed them (3 times) Norton soon issued a quick fix download for that issue.

HR 8)

[YeOldeStonecat]

{QUOTE-> Hi BigC,

My computer repair store only recommends McAfee because of poor experiences with Norton. I had McAfee for a short time after the computer repair guys helped me out with my Norton failures a year and a half ago, but after visiting this forum, I settled on KAV.

It would be interesting to hear from more computer repair guys to hear about their experiences - whether it be Norton, McAfee, or otherwise.

Rich <-QUOTE}

I'll throw in my 2 cents. I'm a computer consultant who's day to day routine is small to medium sized business networks. Be it a stand alone PC, to a network of a dozen, two dozen, some clients up close to a hundred PCs. Every type of business out there, law firms, dentists, resorts, home health care, various non-profits, a couple of schools, yacht brokers, doctors offices, manufacturing, research labs, etc etc.

I used to be all Symantec. Never liked McAfee (home version or enterprise versions) (which seems to be about 50% pre-installed OEM, Symantec retail the other 50% pre-installed). I loved the Symantec retail home consumer version up til around version 2003. Right around that time, it seemed to get quite bloated (slowing systems down). The past couple of years I've focused the core of my business on business networks, so I've been working more with the business versions of antivirus, up til the past year my fave was still Symantec Corp Edition. Centralized management was key to me, and Sym CE/SBE was still IMO performing much better than their home retail product, less of a system performance hit too. When it gained 88 thousand pounds of bloat with version 10, I officially stopped selling any more, clients coming up for renewal will be getting NOD32.

Now I'll try to get back on topic since I strayed a bit...and this relates to a trend in the computer industry. "The big guy is targeted by the threats". Wether it's operating systems, web browsers, or AV programs...the top guy is in the crosshairs of the troublemakers. Some viruses/worms out there are specifically coded to knock out services of popular antivirus programs. The millisecond one hits a system, it tries to do a "one two" punch to knock out the real time protection, and/or hamper the live update service. A healthy system could have a hard time shrugging it off, not to mention a somewhat already compromised system. As other brands become more popular, surely they'll be targeted also. Just like Firefox was the browser for those who wanted to be trendy anti-Microsoft, it started out safe, but as it gained in popularity over the past year...surely enough it's had threats come out over the past few months targeting it.

Uninstalling Symantec products isn't all too tough. They have special removal tools (how many other antivirus brands provide those for you, eh?) and....on their support site they always have VERY details manual removal instructions (again...how many other antivirus brands provide that for you too?). It's quite easy to manually remove compared to say...a McAfee product.

Symantecs support website is the best out there IMO. Any issue or error you can come up with (and believe me, in all my years working in IT, I've come across them)...the solution will be found on their site if one has some ambition to look.

This past year is a big turn around year for antivirus brands....as far as changing/evolving their product to help in the battle against malware other than viruses/worms....meaning trojans/adware/spyware, etc. Symantec hasn't been all too strong in this area and their most recent versions...so unfortunately they get the raw end of the deal when people compare their products against the latest and greatest of other brands.

I will say one thing though, their Corporate Edition/Small Business Edition has an excellent setup routine and management console. Very intuitive, and makes for easy rollouts and client management.

Prior to Symantec Corp Edition being my preferred network antivirus product, which it became around version..oh..hmm....7 or so, I used to use InnocuLAN...a CAI product.

I've come across quite the wide range of AV products over the years, both in stand alone home versions, and business network versions. I'm shocked at how many people who claim to be in IT have barely heard of 2-3 other brands once you get outside of Symantec and McAfee.

[Wake2]

Hi HardRocker

Problem I had with live update in NIS2005
and SystemWorksPremier2005 was that I bought
them soon after release think was October 2004
and Symantec released a new version of their live
update module same month, it never showed up as
available via live update in the programs I had,
and it never showed as available at the Symantec
website until about a week after I installed these
programs, once I found it there and did the upgrade
live update has worked fine since, and I never had
the deactivation problem you mention glad is resolved.

Wake

[Graystoke]

Although I am using KAV 5 Personal now (and of course this could change any minute, being as fickled I am when it comes to AVs :P ) I've used several NAV versions, including NAV 2005. I've never had any problems with NAV on this old Athlon 700, 512 RAM machine. As a matter of fact, it loaded up a lot faster on my computer than KAV 5 with its startup scanner. Never had problems with Live Update either.

I ran weekly scans and everything was alway clean. I would double check by scanning with Ewido. It never found anything either. So I guess NAV was doing it job quite well.

The only thing I don't like about NAV is the weekly updates. I know you can download the IU/RapidReleases, but I always felt that Symantec should update NAV daily as part of it's normal operation. Maybe a small thing, but that's my little pet peeve. :) Who knows, maybe I'll go back to NAV one of these days.

[The Hammer]

The only thing I don't like about NAV is the weekly updates. I know you can download the IU/RapidReleases, but I always felt that Symantec should update NAV daily as part of it's normal operation. Maybe a small thing, but that's my little pet peeve. :) Who knows, maybe I'll go back to NAV one of these days. <-QUOTE}
Maybe things will change when Microsoft enters the market. As people are unhappy with a number of Antivirus products and companies will have to be more responsive to protect market share.

[bigc73542]

I have had Nav installed for about thirty hours and it has been updated four times. That is a lot better than once a week.

[rdsu]

{QUOTE-> I have had Nav installed for about thirty hours and it has been updated four times. That is a lot better than once a week. <-QUOTE}
In this last days we see a lot of incoming threats, so it's normal that Norton released that number of updates...

[bigc73542]

Now that I have run norton a few days I have come to the conclusion that I like it. It scans faster than Kav5 and almost but not quite as fast as Nod. Absolutley no slow down on my system at all. Might have to keep it. ;)

[Acadia]

{QUOTE-> Might have to keep it. <-QUOTE}
Let's see now, for you BigC, "keeping it" means for 2-3 hours! ;)

Acadia

[The Hammer]

{QUOTE-> Now that I have run norton a few days I have come to the conclusion that I like it. It scans faster than Kav5 and almost but not quite as fast as Nod. Absolutley no slow down on my system at all. Might have to keep it. ;) <-QUOTE}
I found NOD scanned almost twice as fast on my system as NAV. But NAV is a good program and not confusing for people new to computers.

[WSFuser]

{QUOTE-> I found NOD scanned almost twice as fast on my system as NAV. <-QUOTE}
it rele depends on ur system. i find that norton's scanning speed runs parallel with how fast the computer is its running on, whereas nod32 is usually fast on any computer. on a P3 (750mhz) comp NAV usually took 45min to an hour. otoh on one of my newer computers (either athlon xp or 64) NAV took 15-20 min. it also depends on the amount of files on the hd.

{QUOTE-> But NAV is a good program and not confusing for people new to computers. <-QUOTE}
agreed, it is user friendly and relatively simple to access options/tasks.

[Osaban]

It's very strange how moods change when people talk about Symantec products. There are times one might think Norton is the greatest rip off ever created by marketing, or a convincing product given its market leadership. If anything the diversity in opinions only confirms the lack of reliability of any internet based information (and I'm not indirectly criticising the Wilderssecurity community). It's a bit depressing because I often have the feeling of knowing much less about a product potential after reading extensively about it, there doesn't seem to be consensus about anything anymore.

NIS has been my first security suite ever and I had it for 8 months. No malware has entered my computer apart from the occasional spyware. I kept NAV always updated and it has stopped at least 4-5 viruses weekly from downloading through my e-mails (my system has been checked regularly by reputable on line scanners, just to be on the safe side).

The reasons I changed to another product are not related to virus infections.
It would take ages to send e-mails using NAV and when files were approaching 1MB I was inevitably receiving an error window from NAV suggesting something was wrong with my mail provider!
I've tried to rectify this problem to no avail. I had to disable NAV and NFW temporarily in order to send my e-mails. Adding the fact that Symantec tech support is notoriously unavailable, I thought perhaps I should try another product.

[Graystoke]

{QUOTE-> Now that I have run norton a few days I have come to the conclusion that I like it. It scans faster than Kav5 and almost but not quite as fast as Nod. Absolutley no slow down on my system at all. Might have to keep it. ;) <-QUOTE}


Hi bigc. Please continue to keep us informed on your experience with NAV. I for one am very interested.

Thank you,

Graystoke :)

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> It's very strange how moods change when people talk about Symantec products. There are times one might think Norton is the greatest rip off ever created by marketing, or a convincing product given its market leadership. If anything the diversity in opinions only confirms the lack of reliability of any internet based information (and I'm not indirectly criticising the Wilderssecurity community). <-QUOTE}Osaban,

Don't discount the possibility that diametrically opposed opinions on a piece of software could both be reflective of the users experience and correct, but that they reflect distinctly different circumstances.

The specific selection of running processes that you choose creates a unique operating environment. Some combinations may be stable to certain types of challenges, some less so. There could be a multitude of additional factors and reasons at work - but the key thing to bear in mind is that when there are conflicting observations, don't assume one is right and one is wrong, both may be true to the local circumstances at work.

Blue

[bigc73542]

Well it has been on here a few days and it seems to be a very well behaved program. It hasn't given me any unwanted surprises and has alerted me that it had deleted to malware while searching the web. It updates as it should and still does not slow my comp down. I REALLY STILL CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHY THERE ARE SOME THAT SEEM TO BE ON A MISSION JUST TO BASH NORTON. I have used just about every antivirus known to man including several corporate versions and none of them run any smoother than norton does on this machine. The only thing that I have noticed is that it takes about fifteen seconds to boot up tne comp. But that is not much extra time,besides I am not in that much of a hurry anyways.

[NAMOR]

My two big complaints when I tried Norton was this (link here) (http://castlecops.com/t78792-Part_1_NAV_2005_Does_Not_Support_Repair_Solution_Fixes.html) . See post one and two. I like to organize my start menu... The other is that Norton doesn't seem to like parts of my Creative Audigy ZS2 divers/software.

[bigc73542]

Well unfortunatly that is the case sometimes not all systems are compatable with all software. There are a couple of programs that don't like my comp. But at least we have a pretty good choice of programs to use ;)

[LowWaterMark]

I've got NAV 2004 as my primary AV on my laptop, (I'm using avast! on my desktop, and these are the only AVs I use now), and my experience is much the same as Bigc's. It runs fine, updates without any problem, and doesn't seem to slow anything down. I was satisfied enough with it that when my sister asked me to pick out and configure a laptop for her, I put NAV on there, too. Having checked back every so often, I find it running and updating itself on her system just fine, as well.

[bigc73542]

I had removed Nav 2005 simply because I am always testing different av's. Well I have reinstalled Nav 2005 and norton firewall and norton utilities simply because it runs better on my comp than any other av I have tried. I won't mention any competing products but even F-#### doesn't run any smoother on here. I will admit it takes up a bit of space on the Hdd but I have a lot of free space to play with. And just because it is a large program doesn't mean it uses all of your resources up. It is actually useing less resources than Kav or Mcafee and both of those run just fine.All in all I am extremely satisfied with the performance and detection rates.

bigc

[Graystoke]

{QUOTE-> I had removed Nav 2005 simply because I am always testing different av's. Well I have reinstalled Nav 2005 and norton firewall and norton utilities simply because it runs better on my comp than any other av I have tried. I won't mention any competing products but even F-#### doesn't run any smoother on here. I will admit it takes up a bit of space on the Hdd but I have a lot of free space to play with. And just because it is a large program doesn't mean it uses all of your resources up. It is actually useing less resources than Kav or Mcafee and both of those run just fine.All in all I am extremely satisfied with the performance and detection rates.

bigc <-QUOTE}


I just installed NSW 2005 today. I purchased it last September. Although it ran fine on my computer, I uninstalled it to try other AVs, including BitDefender, McAfee VS9 and KAV 5. After reading this thread, I decided to install NSW, mainly NAV 2005, again. I've come to the conclusion that it runs smoother on my computer than some of the others I've tried. It also loads faster than a couple of the others.

[Mele20]

Anyone know when the public beta for NAV 2006 is scheduled to begin? Should be around July 1 correct?

[christophs]

{QUOTE-> It's very strange how moods change when people talk about Symantec products. There are times one might think Norton is the greatest rip off ever created by marketing, or a convincing product given its market leadership. If anything the diversity in opinions only confirms the lack of reliability of any internet based information (and I'm not indirectly criticising the Wilderssecurity community). It's a bit depressing because I often have the feeling of knowing much less about a product potential after reading extensively about it, there doesn't seem to be consensus about anything anymore.

NIS has been my first security suite ever and I had it for 8 months. No malware has entered my computer apart from the occasional spyware. I kept NAV always updated and it has stopped at least 4-5 viruses weekly from downloading through my e-mails (my system has been checked regularly by reputable on line scanners, just to be on the safe side).

The reasons I changed to another product are not related to virus infections.
It would take ages to send e-mails using NAV and when files were approaching 1MB I was inevitably receiving an error window from NAV suggesting something was wrong with my mail provider!
I've tried to rectify this problem to no avail. I had to disable NAV and NFW temporarily in order to send my e-mails. Adding the fact that Symantec tech support is notoriously unavailable, I thought perhaps I should try another product. <-QUOTE}



Did you solve the mailproblem?
Same problem at me.
I can not access (work wirh ) my mailserver.
It is possible to go to internet, but server works not oryou have to wait ages to send a mail.

[iwod]

Well, as of today i have seen another computer being infected with Norton installed.
My friend had Norton 2004 installed. And After a ewido scan there were 4 - 5 trojan on his computer. Norton on access detected one but could do nothing about it.

He has both Norton Internet security and Norton AV installed. The trojan is nothing serious, just downloaded about 2xx adware on to his computer and seriously slow down his computer.

What i dont understand is how did he get infected in the first place. And then Norton detect it while it was running.

Anyway i have now fixed nearly 20 of my fds computer. I installed avast on all of them. And tell them to use firefox ( By now i personally think it is far more important than anything else!! )

Let see how it goes after a few months....

[webmedic]

{QUOTE-> (first of all I am not supporting use of this program. that said) I am really getting annoyed by all of the self nominated norton antivirus bashers. I realize it is a large program but that doesn't hurt the way it works.

check the links and please tell me what is wrong with the detection rates of norton.

VB (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?symantec.xml)

AV-comparatives (http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2005_02.php)

West Coast Check-Mark (http://www.westcoastlabs.org/cm-av-products.asp?Comp_ID=23&Cat_ID=1) <-QUOTE}

Hm I dont think they have a good grasp on reality.

http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/jun2005/tc20050617_1613_tc024.htm?chan=tc&

I'm sure all the systems I get in here running norton with virii on them would disagree with you also.

[bigc73542]

webmedic, that article pertains to all security products not just symantec. It just mentioned symantec and mcafee because as they said they are the largest antivirus companys as of now. They also mentioned microsoft as an example.

[webmedic]

yes but if you go to the page last year norton had 16 expoits alone. Those are only the ones they found. We are not talking about exploits in windows here we are only talking about how many times norton itself was able to be exploited.


Also it is very sobering to see this. Myself I like nod I was surprised to see eset on the bottom of the list. Oh well I've been watching kav 2006 for my customers anyway.

[bigc73542]

but you are being misleading by just posting part of a statement here is the statement in it's complete form

[Acadia]

"They're here!" (No, not Poltergeist, Norton bashers, not sure which are scarier.) ::)

Acadia

[webmedic]

I Posted a link anybody can go read it for themselves. As for norton bashing that's OK I get to see all the time at work just how bad it is. Anybody out that has to actually work with infected systems tells you all the same and yet everybody thinks we are just lying to them for some unknown reason.

Did it ever occur to any of you that the reason why we share what we know is to try and help. I'm sorry but I will not stick up for a company that writes pretty looking software that is easy to use and at the same time it does not work as advertised.

To me they are stealing from their customers. The only problem is there are no lemon laws yet to protect you poor people.

[bigc73542]

I also work on computers, I had my shop for twelve plus years and didn't see the problems with norton that you seem to. I have used norton av through several versions and did not have problems. When you are talking about the largest av company there is the chance of finding someone having problems with the product is more likely than finding someone having problems with a little known av. simply because there are more copies of norton on the market than all of the other companys combined except for mcafee. It just makes mathamatical sense. but the percentage per capatia is not that high.

[Acadia]

I rest my case. :-\

Acadia

[webmedic]

I only wish for the customers out that what you say were true.

[Osaban]

{QUOTE-> Did you solve the mailproblem?
Same problem at me.
I can not access (work wirh ) my mailserver.
It is possible to go to internet, but server works not oryou have to wait ages to send a mail. <-QUOTE}

Well I actually tried, but couldn't do anything about it except disabling NIS while sending my e-mails.
Somebody in another forum said that this was due to a bad update from Symantec (apparently it occured in December 2004) and the same source was told from a Symantec tech. that they had rectified the mistake with a new update... My problem persisted, and as I said e-mail operation is a very important matter so I bought KAV (I thought rather than spending money trying to contact Symantec I may as well buy another security system).

[Randy_Bell]

{QUOTE-> "They're here!" (No, not Poltergeist, Norton bashers, not sure which are scarier.) ::)

Acadia <-QUOTE}That is why I no longer participate in this forum. I do admire Curt {BigC}, you, and others who are willing to stick your necks out to resist this infamous anti-Norton bigotry. It is sheer, unadulterated lies and bigotry. Some folks, our friend here being the most recent example, have an agenda. It is too bad some people will distort the truth to promote a bigoted agenda. :(

[bigc73542]

Randy,I think most of it is caused by people believeing in gossip or fabricated stories as gospel with out really having any real proof to what they hear and post. Like it will be, "well I had a friend that had a friend that knew someone that had an uncle that had a problem with norton av. Which immediatly makes it a junk piece of bloated crap. Bashing products takes a small mind with no imagination at all. I can't use nod on my computer but that doesn't make it a lousy piece of junk. It makes it a piece of software that has a compatability issue with something on my comp and that is all. It is still a good av I just can't use it but a lot of good folks can and do ues it with no problems. This bashing just really does not prove or accomplish a thing, it is just a big waste of time and space.

[WSFuser]

{QUOTE-> This bashing just really does not prove or accomplish a thing, it is just a big waste of time and space. <-QUOTE}
well put, however, it is inevitable when comparing products. some people prefer product A and others, product B. sometimes people will try to convince other ppl that their preferred product is better and thats why people start flaming or bashing. i have no problem with norton,which ive used for 3-4 years, but i prefer nod32 because its faster on older comps and it has a http scanner.

[SDS909]

Norton is a hog, therefore it sucks.

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> Norton is a hog, therefore it sucks. <-QUOTE}
The latest version of Norton (2005) is not a hog on 80% of the machines that I saw it running on. The remaining 20% hadn't uninstalled their AV properly, or maybe it was something else, I dont know :-\

Right now the only problem I have with Symantec/Norton is the price (that includes upgrades/renewals etc.). :(

[Graystoke]

On how many of these computers that I keep reading about, that are running NAV, that are brought in for repair because a virus/virii wiped it out, is the NAV virus subsciption up to date?

I'm just curious because I have several friends who have had to bring their computers in for repair because it was wiped out by a virus. They all said they were running a version of NAV at the time. I always asked if their virus subscription was up to date. The answer was usually, HUH? They had no idea you had renew the subscription. They figured once NAV was installed, that's it. I wonder how many of those people I read about whose computer was over run by virii, are like my friends. NAV may have its faults, just like any other AV, but I think it gets a bum rap on many occasions by people who just want to be on the "I Hate NAV" bandwagon.

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> On how many of these computers that I keep reading about, that are running NAV, that are brought in for repair because a virus/virii wiped it out, is the NAV virus subsciption up to date? <-QUOTE}

I run eScan free on many PCs, and in my experience, those infected PCs (i.e declared as infected by eScan) with NAV were either very old versions (say, like NAV 2001 or 2002) or had expired their subscriptions.

My old neighbours' NAV 2004 protects their PC quite well.

[Mr2cents]

I'm a former norton 2002 user, and was happy with it. I was never infected with any kinda virus, trojan. etc. The 2002 version wasn't heavy on the resources...and my computer ran good. Here's what turned me off to norton.

The liveupdate stopped working. This in turn would cause my computer to crash. Norton would get the liveupdate fixed, and in a few days it would happen again. I finally got tired of my computer crashing and decided to search for other antivirus alternatives.

After trialing about every antivirus out there. I puchased 2 licences. Kav and nod32. I've been running kav for about 2 months now. It runs great on my computer. It's detection rate is second to none...according to avcomparatives. So until something better comes along...I will continue to run Kav and boclean.

I did trial the 2005 version of norton. There was a slight problem. After installing Norton. I tried to get on the internet. My computer didn't have the resources to run that fat hog. ::)

I had to uninstall it.. clean the registry and try to get all that bloat out. I finally succeeded (sp)? No more norton for me. Not on this computer anyway.
Maybe when I get another computer. I may give it a trial..well on second thought.. I probably won't :D

[Mr2cents]

{QUOTE-> On how many of these computers that I keep reading about, that are running NAV, that are brought in for repair because a virus/virii wiped it out, is the NAV virus subsciption up to date?

I'm just curious because I have several friends who have had to bring their computers in for repair because it was wiped out by a virus. They all said they were running a version of NAV at the time. I always asked if their virus subscription was up to date. The answer was usually, HUH? <-QUOTE} Graystoke, You make a very valid point. I heard on world news tonight a few months ago that they did a survey. Only 18% of all computer users keep their antivirus up to date. I believe that Norton is getting a bad rap here. It's not nortons fault. As everyone knows, Norton comes preinstalled on a lot of new computers.

Most newbie computer owners think they are automatically protected when they see the norton icon. They fail to register the product and turn on automatic updating. No one ever told them they were supposed to. They just don't know. I've witnessed this myself on several occasions. I've had people call me and tell me their computer was slow, or doing wierd things and would ask me if I would come over and see if I could help them get their computer going.

I went to one persons house and his norton antivirus was never registered or updated. He had the computer for about 4 months. After we registered the norton antivirus and updated it.. Norton found 22 infections.. 1 trojan.

I then installed adaware. It found 172 infections ::) After norton and adaware cleaned everything up. His computer ran like new again. He said he didn't know that you were supposed to register norton...he had never even heard of live update. :o

You can replace Norton with any other antiviruses name and come out with the same results. If the antiviruses aren't kept updated. They might as well not be there. Until the newbie computer users get educated on antiviruses. This trend will continue. All most of them want to do is head to the chat rooms, or p2ps, or pornsites. ::)

[fzxbeetle]

{QUOTE-> Graystoke, You make a very valid point. I heard on world news tonight a few months ago that they did a survey. Only 18% of all computer users keep their antivirus up to date. I believe that Norton is getting a bad rap here. It's not nortons fault. As everyone knows, Norton comes preinstalled on a lot of new computers.

Most newbie computer owners think they are automatically protected when they see the norton icon. They fail to register the product and turn on automatic updating. No one ever told them they were supposed to. They just don't know. I've witnessed this myself on several occasions. I've had people call me and tell me their computer was slow, or doing wierd things and would ask me if I would come over and see if I could help them get their computer going.

I went to one persons house and his norton antivirus was never registered or updated. He had the computer for about 4 months. After we registered the norton antivirus and updated it.. Norton found 22 infections.. 1 trojan.

I then installed adaware. It found 172 infections ::) After norton and adaware cleaned everything up. His computer ran like new again. He said he didn't know that you were supposed to register norton...he had never even heard of live update. :o

You can replace Norton with any other antiviruses name and come out with the same results. If the antiviruses aren't kept updated. They might as well not be there. Until the newbie computer users get educated on antiviruses. This trend will continue. All most of them want to do is head to the chat rooms, or p2ps, or pornsites. ::) <-QUOTE}

:) Yeah,I agree with you. It is the user's fault not the programme. Norton is not perfect but it does do its job. Most of user can well protected by AV if it is up to date and correctly use. Some guru can protect themself even without AVs. ;D
:)

[WSFuser]

{QUOTE-> Norton is a hog, therefore it sucks. <-QUOTE}
IMHO, KAV is more of a resource hog than Norton, but that doesnt mean it sucks. If a program offers high resource usage and very low detection rates then maybe its not the greatest AV but u still have to prove ur statements and not just bash whatever AV u hate.

{QUOTE-> Graystoke, You make a very valid point. I heard on world news tonight a few months ago that they did a survey. Only 18% of all computer users keep their antivirus up to date. I believe that Norton is getting a bad rap here. It's not nortons fault. As everyone knows, Norton comes preinstalled on a lot of new computers.

Most newbie computer owners think they are automatically protected when they see the norton icon. They fail to register the product and turn on automatic updating. No one ever told them they were supposed to. They just don't know. I've witnessed this myself on several occasions. I've had people call me and tell me their computer was slow, or doing wierd things and would ask me if I would come over and see if I could help them get their computer going.

I went to one persons house and his norton antivirus was never registered or updated. He had the computer for about 4 months. After we registered the norton antivirus and updated it.. Norton found 22 infections.. 1 trojan.

I then installed adaware. It found 172 infections ::) After norton and adaware cleaned everything up. His computer ran like new again. He said he didn't know that you were supposed to register norton...he had never even heard of live update. :o

You can replace Norton with any other antiviruses name and come out with the same results. If the antiviruses aren't kept updated. They might as well not be there. Until the newbie computer users get educated on antiviruses. This trend will continue. All most of them want to do is head to the chat rooms, or p2ps, or pornsites. ::) <-QUOTE}

agreed, this is why the best protection u can have is to use common sense and use ur brain. a computer cant do anything on its own, so why do people expect their AV to function properly on its own?

[rjbsec]

Personally I've removed NIS 2004 from my PC (after a struggle!) and I am trialing KAV - I really like the regular daily/hourly updates, I think that aspect in today's virus environment is very important.
From what I've seen so far I can't see any reason to go back to NIS and will probably end up with KAV Pers Pro and Zonealarm free firewall.

[The Hammer]

{QUOTE-> That is why I no longer participate in this forum. I do admire Curt {BigC}, you, and others who are willing to stick your necks out to resist this infamous anti-Norton bigotry. It is sheer, unadulterated lies and bigotry. Some folks, our friend here being the most recent example, have an agenda. It is too bad some people will distort the truth to promote a bigoted agenda. :( <-QUOTE}
Come on back. Looks like a lot of other folks besides Big C have rallied to Nortons side.

[bigc73542]

I will agree with some of the people here on a few points about norton av. Some of the older versions did have a few problems, and the updater was a pain in the a## sometimes. But in the 2005 version the updater works just fine and the av runs surprisingly light. It doesn't slow my comp at all. I understand the frustration people had with some of the older versions of norton av, I had some of those problems also. But what I am trying in this thread is convey is the fact that norton 2005 is actually a very good antivirus program, regardless of what some of the illinformed bashers say. I am not trying to get everyone to switch to norton either, I am just letting a few open minded security aware people know that they should give norton av a try if they are planning on switching av programs. It has evovled into a very good product, really nothing like the older versions. But hopefully all av's are getting better as time goes by.

[controler]

here her Big ;D

The suite works well.

the Spamfilter works great , especialy with your yahoo account.

I been trying like hell to get Mc affee to work & I I finialy did, by uninstalling almost all my other security software including Regdefend.

On My system, I could not get the active X crap to install right without uninstalling Regdefend.
I never had that elproblemo with Norton's suite.

controler ( one of the original Norton testers )

[Graystoke]

{QUOTE-> Most newbie computer owners think they are automatically protected when they see the norton icon. They fail to register the product and turn on automatic updating. No one ever told them they were supposed to. They just don't know. <-QUOTE}

It is amazing, isn't it. :-\


{QUOTE-> You can replace Norton with any other antiviruses name and come out with the same results. If the antiviruses aren't kept updated. They might as well not be there. Until the newbie computer users get educated on antiviruses. <-QUOTE}


I totally agree. :)

[Graystoke]

{QUOTE-> That is why I no longer participate in this forum. I do admire Curt {BigC}, you, and others who are willing to stick your necks out to resist this infamous anti-Norton bigotry. It is sheer, unadulterated lies and bigotry. Some folks, our friend here being the most recent example, have an agenda. It is too bad some people will distort the truth to promote a bigoted agenda. <-QUOTE}




{QUOTE-> Come on back. Looks like a lot of other folks besides Big C have rallied to Nortons side. <-QUOTE}


Hi Randy. I agree with The Hammer. You have helped a lot of people here and at dslreports security forum. I was sorry to see you leave there. Please don't let a few chase you away from here also.

[ErikAlbert]

I'm not going to discuss which AV software is the very best.

Most test environments to test AV softwares aren't sufficient to evaluate AV softwares.
Creating a sufficient and controlled test environment is too much work and who is willing to do that for just an AV test.

The winner is always an accidental winner, the one that detects/removes the biggest number of viruses in a specific test environment and could be indeed a loser in another test environment. It's just a matter of being lucky.
That's why each differe