Norton Antivirus 2009 and Norton Internet Securithy 2009 final versons released

Me too, by the way. But mailscanners are not such a pain in the a** as fullblown hhtp-scanners are...

 

Meh, OK...

 

Installed with the community watch disabled and it still connects when the computer is idle. Checked the settings and it is off. Why give the option to install with it off and still have it on?

 

Community watch enabled means that it sends infos to Symantec. Are you sure it actually SENDS?

 

Thank you.
Looks like NIS2009 reduced the resource usage a lot based on people's experience in here, but it seems that the detection rate is still not great. That's not surprising to me because considering the lousy detection rate of previous norton versions, I don't expect norton to be the first tie in terms of detection rate all of a sudden.

 

When you say lousy detection, what is that based on. I am not disputing your remark, but this is the quandry. Depending on where you go, some say great detection, some say bad.

 

Well, come on.
They are better than Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Eset, McAfee, Panda...
None of them I would call "lousy".
Given the fact that for example Avira has next to no selfprotection at all (just an example) I wouldn't say detection rates are the only thing to look at.

These tests, especially considering detection rates, allways give a snapshot only.

 

I agree, I mean if we just look at detection, then based on this, Prevx is just as good as Kaspersky and Eset.

 

They're just virustotal tests..

 

And, what is your point. I am just saying one place showing a product like Norton as very dismal at detection, and another showing it at the top.

 

I know Norton lost some weight.
But how about the quality?
Did the detection rate changed alot?
Thanks!

 

That's your opinion but some of us, me included, think that pulse updates is a great idea. And yes - virus labs are 24/7 - they have to be......calling frequent signature updates 'crazy' is for what purpose? I guess the security app you're using updates every 1 or 2 hours?

And stating we need to learn to use our PCs properly.....what you think we're constantly visiting 'dodgy' websites on purpose? The majority of us do use our PCs properly but doesn't mean we don't welcome fast and regular updates - particularly when it has no impact on performance - I'm not even aware Norton's updating - it's that light............

 

People complain about everything. If the updates come once daily, it's not often enough. If they come every few minutes, it's too often. That's bullc***.

 

I'm surprised that you're criticizing the five minute update frequency. One of the big vulnerabilities of signature based detection is the lag-time between the appearance of new malware and the creation and distribution of a signature to detect that malware. Pulse updates is a dramatic step toward zero-day protection, which is very much needed.

Also, I find your statement that "people need to learn how to use their PC's" so they don't need frequent updates curious - what does this mean?

 

norton is doing great...

 

At least for the first part of the statement I think ist not completely wrong.
When I look around I see almost everybody running Windows XP with an Admin-account for example. I stopped commenting this a long time ago...

On the other hand I don't think this has anything to do with update frequency...

 

Why so harsh I use Avira my self also but am glad to see Norton pushing up where it should be

There has only been 1 test so far and it ranks within a . of a % of Avira the detection has went up the program it self is light as a feather and 8 Pages worth of praises from people that NORMALLY would hate Norton and the inherent bloat that comes with it. the plain simple fact is Norton has changed and changed big time.. yes it will take time for there rep to change but if people don't at least give it a chance they have no room to talk down on it.

The main point is for once symantec has been listening to there customer base and I for one am happy to see it.

 

Detection rate of Malware is at 98.7% please explain to me how this is Not so great ?

 

Ok, I let Norton Internet Security 2009 in my friend's computer all the day long yesterday, default settings, more info here:https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1314293&postcount=94

I couldn't wait for the results. Made sure that Norton was updated. Ran a full scan. Nothing detected. So I took off his drive and plugged it in my computer. Run a scan of it with KIS. Results:


The list is longer...
I already removed norton from his computer and got KIS back.

 

So we have to believe you. At least as long as you cut of the important part of the screenshot...

 

I'm really curious how many of those were packed. (or siting dormant not executed) also I see its a lot of the same virus if you look at the names. this really proves nothing unfortunately but thanks for your time anyways.


also your detection Date's don't match up with what you are saying =X I see from the 6th of July to the 29th of July.. care to explain

 

Obviously, emperordarius is trying to protect the folders from where the infections where found
I think we discussed about this friend once earlier and how I do met on such specimen !!

Anyways, emperordarius could you list more clearly the name of the infection found. I am just curious, does norton miss rootkit based malware or even your plain-vanilla trojan programs ....

 

What "names" are you talking about? I don't see a single one.

To be honest, I don't believe a single word of this story. 56(!!!) infections, and Norton not to find ONE of them? LOL
Some stupid story, if you ask me. I tend to write something more explicit, but I'll let it be this way.

I used NIS Norton 2008 almost one year and regularly checked with Kaspersky's Online-Scan. Guess how many infections Kaspersky found that NIS didn't...

 

ROFL

 

lol, try Avira after kaspersky and you will remove it too...