Norton Internet Security, Antivirus and 360 Being Retired?

You obviously don't understand how the product works, yet you dismiss anybody who says something positive about it without differentiation as a fanboy, thus making any argument whatsoever a fanboy argument and thereby rendering yourself and your views invincible against any form of opinion different than yours.

 

After spending hours reading reviews, frankly, I still don't know. Most are in favor of Kaspersky 2015 but many are also in favor of Bitdefender.
I think on "The PC Security Channel" Bitdefender responded very slowly in the "Bitdefender vs Kaspersky Cleaning/Removal test".

Ah well ... I guess whatever you choose, it isn't good enough...

(though Kaspersky is doing slightly better in general, as long as you do not need their service, that is crap)

 

Before you buy KIS Multi-Device be certain to try the free download.

I have a 665 day subscription to the new NS, but have uninstalled it in a not totally rationally based decision because of Norton's refusal to explain how it's behavior blocker works when you have no internet connection. While at some point I probably will reinstall it I am currently using Emisoft Internet Security 9 which IMHO and those of YouTube Tests I have watched is an excellent product.

But before installing EMIS I tried KIS Multi-Device because until today it was on sale on Newegg for $25.00. I don't understand why but this version of KIS slowed my PC to a crawl and made it unuseable -- and prior to switching to NS I had been using KIS for years.

It was a clean install because I had used the Latest Norton Removal Tool to uninstall NS.

 

Indeed. Even trying to explaining how it works again is almost pointless since this has been hashed over multiple times. A Norton 2015 machine should be exceptionally hard to infect simply because insight will block almost anything it's not 'absolutely' sure of. Here's a couple of trojans Norton nailed that were about 60-90 minutes old that nothing else touched unless it had a validation method (like Trend 2015). This would walk right through a traditional AV with 'strong' on-demand scanning. If you want real protection use stuff like Webroot, Trend 2015, and Norton. If you want on-demand awesomeness, use Herdprotect.

 

Oh the wonderful file rep detection. Kaspersky Internet Security 2015 maintenance release file rep false detection, and Norton even says the file is 25 days old. That's about as real as it gets.




http://i936.photobucket.com/albums/ad205/snippits75/nsfalsepositive.png

 

Why would you have Kaspersky on the same machine as Norton?

File Rep has saved many a machine I have worked on. This week I noticed Googleupdate.exe was picked up by it on another machine at home, but it was because Google released a new updater. The interesting part is, the reputation 'released' this file after the reputation became more well known. I'd prefer to have this sort of 'potential' for FP due to how much it adds to the security of a system.

 

I have often downloaded installers for other products with Norton installed to see what their reputation system thought of them. It tends to be rather hostile to competitors files. I guarantee it was digitally signed by Kaspersky and as shown it was 25 days old, and was DELETED, not quarantined, no questions asked, just gone. It gets pretty hard to defend that.

 

Are are implying some sort of conspiracy?

 

Kaspersky was not installed. Some people do have half a brain.

Bingo! You said it about file rep...false positives. If it's not in our whitelist, and many users don't have it, delete that sucker. File rep is good in one way and bad in another. Default deny mode is not unique to Norton.

 

Generally people download maint. releases on the machine where the release will be applied. Hence the logical conclusion was you are running both Kaspersky and Norton. Since you didn't divulge any additional information, it's what was inferred. I highly doubt Norton cares about Kaspersky in any measurable way, especially enough to avoid classification of their files. The more LOGICAL conclusion is - almost nobody with Norton installed is downloading a Kaspersky file, and hence it lacks deeper classification.

But let's throw logic out the window, and resort to conspiracy theories instead. It makes life so much more interesting.

 

That or ineptitude. Don't know which.

 

Kaspersky maintenance releases are the full version and the latest release. It's not a patch.

Why do you keep talking about conspiracy? I was just pointing out that file rep is prone to false positives, and the Kaspersky installer just happens to be the victim.

 

Again. The reputation system is based on 'Norton Community'.. The Norton Community likely will rarely, if ever see anything related to Kaspersky, because that means they likely wouldn't be using Norton. That's how community based systems work. You won't generally see vegetarians in meat markets. It's not a conspiracy, it's not done because it's a competitor, or because of ineptitude, it's just the facts of the community.

 

This Kaspersky/Norton stuff should not be the point of an argument. I think it's hilarious actually.

Conspiracy or not, it's funny. Obviously very few users of Norton have downloaded a recent version of Kaspersky. The result sux but it's not a cause for argument. The point is well taken that it shows a flaw of Norton's Insight that produces false positives. A better approach would be to let the user choose what to do with the file where it's determined to be suspicious based on newness and few Norton users using it.

I often download demos of new security products. I guess that's another good reason to keep Norton uninstalled. Due to a unique set of circumstances I wound up with a 665 day subscription to the new NS. I uninstalled it becoming concerned about Norton's total lack of response to those who are concerned about how its cloud based SONAR behavior blocker works, if at all, if the user is not connected to the internet.. A behavior blocker is critical to NS overall protection because even Norton admits it's on demand scanning kinda sux and won't participate in any comparative on demand scanning tests. Norton's emphasis has been on blocking, and it's excellent at that but it's not bullet proof.

I have,at least for now, switched to Emisoft Internet Security 9 which has proven itself to be an excellent product.

 

Absolutely. This is my biggest Norton complaint and mostly the reason we do not use their products at work. Software development and Norton do not go together. It deletes your files as fast as you compile them.

 

@Mayahana

You posted a zero day file rep detection, and I posted a file rep false positive on a file 25 days old. In fact your file rep says nothing about community, but mine says fewer than 100 users in the Norton community. Yours had nothing to do with community. It was just a straight up whitelist block.

Done playing whack a mole with you. I think I made my point clear enough if one can get past the fanboyism.

 

That's because you were on the expanded information tab, I wasn't. It's not fanboyism (whatever that is), it's coming from a purely engineering perspective of having some knowledge of how these types of programs work, and trying to explain to someone that seems to lack the ability to comprehend how/why it is working this way. I will try again, one last time; Community Reputation is isn't exclusively based on age. It's based on an amalgam of many factors - age, commonality, etc. In the case of ANOTHER Antivirus product, age will be one factor, but it will fail-hit on other factors because the community itself wouldn't likely be downloading/executing/installing another AV product with Norton installed. Similar to how Jack points out Norton (and Trend, and Webroot, etc) would be terrible things to run if you are in software development as it would flag everything. False rep positive, based on several metrics. Kaspersky flagged on 'relatively' new (3 weeks), combined with extremely uncommon (sub-100 users) That's how it keeps people from getting infected.

Trend is scoring 100% now precisely because of it's reputation and fingerprinting systems. If you want to protect a system from modern, complex threats - you'll be running a reputation inclusive product within a couple of years anyway. As long as you can restore from false positive, it's not a big issue, and it's certainly not an issue for the vast majority of people that use the product. Out of millions of Norton users, 20-30 downloaded Kaspersky.. /yawn

Yes, Norton hates AV's, just like skid marks cause accidents. Norton community as a whole wouldn't be downloading other AV products, hence reputation hits. No conspiracy, just logic.

 

Uhm, what have a right click scan with signatures todo with protection layer? i am miss something? Norton is almost fully cloud now with sonar etc. Ur statement is just not true. And, i am not using norton or am a fan of norton. But, norton is one of the best products out there with exellent protection, specialy the new 2015 lines.

 

Norton obviously includes attempted downloads in it's insight process. So does anyone have an idea how many attempted downloads of a new file it takes before Norton will not block it. Does Norton also have a whitelist for new downloads. I have seen this issues arise in the gaming community where users of Norton have not been able to download a new patch for an online game on the day it is released.

And BTW: any anger/hostility should be directed at the cyber criminals that cause the extreme lengths companies have to go to to block them. Anger/hostilty at A/V companies and those who favor or dislike a certain product and defend or criticize it is misplaced.

 

I'm not a Norton enthusiast, but in this case the policy would be to delete any other AV in order to avoid any conflict. Some AVs (like Avira ) will notify you of the incompatibility, obviously Norton goes straight to the point...

 

I could see them blocking it from running while installed, but if you were downloading it to put on another machine that you did not want to connect to the internet until you had some AV, just deleting it is not nice. Also, I don't want to give the wrong idea, I like Norton, except for issues like this.

 

Same goes for Kaspersky...

I installed Kaspersky Internet Security 2015 yesterday.

a tool that is 100% okay is deleted - no options (like: trust this file, or something)





When changing to another AV product one seems to have to do some customising anyhow.
Sometimes the most simple thing doesn't work.

Like - immediately after install of Kaspersky - I open Firefox - Google being my 'home page'.
It starts of with "This Connection is Untrusted".
Great!!
After "I understand the risk" and trying a few options one ends up with Google search.
The solution on the support page of Firefox did not help.
Finally found the solution on Kaspersky lab
Firefox->Options->Advanced -> Certificates -> View Certificates->Tab Authorities->button Import:
C:\ProgramData\Kaspersky Lab\AVP15.0.1\Data\Cert\(fake)Kaspersky Anti-Virus Personal Root Certificate.cer

(Oh, IE : no problem)

btw: This 'deleting a file'-thing.
Here the 'Support' comes in: accepting files as false positives.
I had a few in the past: Norton 'fixed' those within a few hours (really!)
You submit the file, Norton confirms receipt and accept them as false and within a few hours the matter is fixed, after updating.

Kaspersky? Forget it: you have to send a request to Kaspersky Virus Lab.
Kaspersky Virus Lab acknowledge receipt, but after that... nothing happens.


=

 

I understand it is pain for developer that their program are always detected by Norton for poor reputation.
And we can't always restore them, though I still don't fully understand its logic sometimes I couldn't restore the deleted file, in some case simply logging on admin accout solved it but there's still the case I can't find restore function.

Well, surely Norton never solely rely on prevalence and age.
Symantec says officially it also take these into account that rep of source URL, rep of publisher & signer if it's signed, and safety rating of the machine (if you often or recently infected, all files on your computer get less rep), and even other dozens of factor.

I had an experience that I downloaded 2 files both of them are acknoledged within 1 week, used less than 5 people, and the source URL have 'Unknown' reputation, the one is detected by DL insight while the other is not and get good (1/3) rep.
So I assume the property of file itself, such as maybe usage of certain packer or obfuscation and/or result of heuristic scan (Insight checks are always done just after On-Access scanning) also affects reputation.

 

Just downloaded a few free antiviruses from MajorGeeks and not a peep from Norton.

Downloaded a Webroot SecureAnywhere product, installed it and ran Norton Autofix which produced the attached image.

Norton has been known to pop up warning of conflicting software but you can force Norton to check by selecting Help > Get Support.

 

Not at all. We have had no similar issues using it in a development environment. It's probably been 6 or seven years since I have seen KIS delete something that was safe. The google issue, definitely a problem. Norton is the only vendor we have had issues with. It's a good home product, if you don't do any development on your home machines. It's probably a good work product if you aren't a software company.