Norton Antibot

Thanks so much.

 

This product may not prefered by experienced user happy to answer question themselves, and also the product relased by symantec just want to hear the feedback of the market, it will incorporate into the NIS at last just like norton confidential, so you do not need this product.

 

It's still useful for those who don't want NIS and don't need the firewall and other features, but instead just use NAV and want a little extra protection.

 

I have chatted with some Symantec analysts about Antibot and I was informed that this product would not be added to the existing so called overall security package 360 or NIS for the matter...

I found this rather strange and advised them to change the name of 360 to 359 and a half.

When Symantec think that a package like Antibot is needed (and I agree on that) they should include it in the 360 package in any case!

 

I have Antibot installed too. It's the 1310 version. At my Vista 64 PC it says that it covers 388 behaviors. Did it upgrade so fast or what else? It's over 100 more than said here a couple of days ago.

 

Hi!

First of all, it is really important to understand that Antibot (re-branded SSPR) is just a probe of the market, nothing more. And this probe have failed.

Let me explain more. Every anti-virus and anti-malware professional understand that traditional anti-virus software is loosing any reliability (I wrote a big article about it, but, unfortunately, in Russian and don't have time to translate it to English). Thus, anti-virus needs additional, behavior-based protection. This technique could be implemented different ways- as blacklisting (expert) HIPS (like Antibot, for instance), as whitelisting HIPS and as sandbox HIPS (I don't talk here about classical HIPS as the market haven't accepted this technology as a mainstream). So, any big company need to probe the market to check out if the technology is good for masses or it is not. Antibot is just such a probe for blacklisting HIPS. I'm not surprised that Symantec do not want to add it into their "360" packet as this probe had to be fail and it is as a mainstream behavioral protection product.

 

1310 v here on xp, 280 behaviors monitored here.
Just checked for update, none avaliable.

 

Hello Edwin024,

If I had to guess, there is probably a difference in the number of behaviors monitored between Norton AntiBot versions for WinXP and Vista. Since I am using Primary Response SafeConnect and not NAB, I can not confirm this.


Peace & Love,

CogitoErgoSum

 

Just downloaded & installed NAB v1310.132 on XP - 280 monitored here.
Rob

 

Mine is showing 293 behaviors on my Vista 32

 

How has it "failed", exactly?

 

Solcroft,

I think Ilya means it is a marketing probe, failing in this context is "gained not enough positive responses"

Rg

 

I don't agree with Ilya, at this point in time. Symantec still advertizes Antibot on their website. They have selling points for it and you can go on like that. So I don't think that it's just a probe. They could have brought out a free demo or something to see how that will do. Not making a product and putting it up the market for almost 30 dollars.

And I still find that this technology should be part of 360 and NIS. Symantec should otherwise give this program to the users who bought NIS or 360.

 

That is right, Kees. Not only responces, but money too (hey, it's a business!).

 

It's common knowledge that Symantec's products are aimed at the lowest common denominator of the populace (not to say they're any less effective). A new concept like Antibot is going to take time to sink in. After all, how long do you think it took for the general populace to accept and understand that firewalls were necessary?

Stating that a product has "failed" because it didn't garner "high enough" attention and sales is a very subjective claim at best. "High enough" compared to what? Symantec's other products? DefenseWall?

 

I believe it's 280 on XP and 293 on Vista.

 

"High enought" with expectations.

 

I installed it 2 different times and saw 2 different numbers. 280 once I believe, and another time something higher, 293 perhaps? Not sure, but it did show different numbers on different installs, so who knows what's going on there...

 

Out of curiosity at your claims that AntiBot "fails", I downloaded the 15-day trial and spent the last hour or so tinkering with it.

When compared to the likes of Micropoint, ThreatFire and EQSecure, AntiBot had no particular distinguishing qualities, apart from a pretty UI and relatively detailed information about flagged threats (it does this much better than MP or TF). However, on the other hand, it looked like a solid performer with no major letdowns. Judging from how it handles and identifies threats, I'm hazarding a guess that it'll produce less FPs than MP and TF for a majority of people... typical of Symantec.

I like AntiBot so far; it does what it claims to quite well. It has nothing particularly special over MP and TF, but it isn't horribly worse off either, AND it has the Symantec brand backing it up (the UI looks pretty to boot, and I'm always a sucker for that). Could be interesting.

 

Hi, folks: If Antibot's performance in general is 50-50 vs ThreatFire(free version), then Ilya's point may be proven truthful. Symantec's probe(exploration) in business sense may indeed have failed right there. Who is going to fork over $$$ for something that is not better than other freeware. I have not tested antibot, but am using threatfire free happily. Until such time when antibot can prove its superiority over TH, I definitely hold my wallet very closely to my chest. Have a nice one.

 

Time will tell. Many commercial products are making good business even when comparable free alternatives are available. Plenty of factors are involved when it comes to things like these.

 

True, the Norton/Symantec name alone is guaranteed to produce sales, even if the product is completely useless....

 

Indeed. There are sheep who buy based on brand alone, and then there are sheep who bash based on brand alone regardless of whether they've actually used to product.

 

Kerodo: Antibot is far from useless... Read the files on what bots can do and see how Antibot is acting against it. It sure looks good and ok by me.An even more secure PC.

 

Perhaps a silly question but why all this interest when Primary Response SafeConnect, of which AntiBot is a licensed clone, has been out for quite some time? Could it be the Symantec factor?

And, why use AntiBot when the original is out there and the same price? Is it 'better' than PRSC and if so then how? And is this just a prelude to Symantec buying up Sana (like so many originators of great products before)