Booting the PC left unprotected in the 2009 Norton products

Hello,



"In summary:

The marketing for the Symantec line of Norton products in 2009, puts it as "designed to speed up the glory days of boot eg. introduced a function "Early Load" to accelerate the time of the boot process if the "Early Load" is off (as is default), the real-time protection starts only if the CPU load is below 40% or if the computer is not protected in the first 30segs after the start it is possible that there are intrusions. A colleague managed to create our Hungarian 46 copies of the EICAR ie, the quick start of Norton 2009 is a security risk. "



View link notice

 

Hi there,

Very interesting article, indeed.

I know a few AV's include an option called “Early Load”. Avira 9 (Premium and Free versions) is one of those but like Norton 2009, it's not the default setting. You have to choose it if you do a Custom install.

I'd rather sacrifice a little bit on my PC boot time and get early protection from my AV than letting it to start up late and getting a virus infection.

Best regards,

Carlos

 

I never understood the fascination with boot times. Just how often do you need to reboot anyway? Only when you install a system driver. Even most apps that ask for a reboot don't really need one.

For daily use, sleep is so much better. My pc resumes from sleep in ~5s to a usable desktop.

 

Hi


Links Avira Premium and Free reference include an option called “Early Load” ?

 

(again) It seems nothing has changed in Symantec/Norton since 2001 , they are just cheating .

This flaw could be used by malware writers to create a malware designed to bypass this vulnerability and potentially cause troubles.

 

I'm running NIS 2009 and early load appears to be on by default. Perhaps the default setting has been changed with updates since that review. I hadn't gone near a Nortons/Symantec product for years until they gave it a total overhaul(I was using NOD32 until I got infected). It seems as soon as they make some much needed improvements they are accused of "cheating". I could have chosen better individual security products(ie Avira,Comodo,OA etc) but as a suite(which I prefer for a number of reasons) I find it very good...just my two cents worth.

 

My system takes only 45 seconds to boot (from pressing an ON button to a functional desktop).

 

.
This has been discussed on the Symantec forum for NIS, but unfortunately without a clear answer. One response is NIS2009 automatically turns on Early Load when it detects malware on the PC that must be removed during the boot process (and then presumably tells the user to reboot). My feeling is if Early Load is unnecessary why was it included? I could not get an official response explaining the purpose of Early Load. I've installed NIS2009 on multiple PCs and EL has always been off by default, but I have not installed the most recent build so it's possible the default has changed. It would be nice if Symantec would weigh in on this.

 

nope....i just installed the latest nav 2009 and it too has the early load turned off.

 

My suspicion is that “Early Load” was made an option by Symantec in order to accommodate the varying preferences of individuals. Users differ in their risk profile and in their tolerance for delays during startup.

With “Early Load” enabled, I have noticed that Norton Internet Security 2009 will update virus definitions, web protection definitions, etc. at system startup – even before login - which I consider to be nice feature.

 

Hi there,

As per your question, you may want to watch this video where you can see the early load option in Avira 9.0 Personal version: http://remove-malware.com/antimalwa...vira-antivir-90-review-prevention-test-video/

The guys is installing Avira 9.0 on a clean PC and testing it using some shaddy URLs. Among those URLs there is one one that installs a rogue program which is removed by Avira 9.0 upon reboot thanks to the “Early Load” option.

You probably might want to ask that question at Avira Antivir forums.

Kind regards,

Carlos

 

.
You may be right, but I find it frustrating that the Symantec reps would not (or could not) explain how EL works so users can make an informed choice. This demonstrates the advantage of dealing with smaller companies that are more responsive and have reps more knowledgeable about their products.

 

Thanks

 

i only find it adds a few seconds or maybe a total of 5 or so on any system i am using it on. they are all newish core 2 systems though but it only adds (actually timed) 2 seconds on my desktop and just over 5 seconds on my laptop im typing this on so im not sure honestly what the big deal is and why its just not on by default personally. i have been using nis2009 since it came out and i have had a few minor complaints but ive went to a few different ones and came back to nis2009..

 

It dosent slow down her either. If its not turned on by default, there must be a reason for it. Probably they dont find it necessary but gives the option to do it. I dont think they prefer 5 secs longer booting time over better security. IMO this is just very unmaturish and unconsidered bashing.

 

In this 3 page tread, there is some info.



http://community.norton.com/norton/board/message?board.id=nis_feedback&message.id=20433#M20433

Auto-Protect Early Load will set Auto-Protect to load earlier in the boot process. This will protect against malware that also loads early in the boot process, if there is any on the system, which there shouldn't be unless you turned off protection at some point or something. It will slow down the boot process since we are scanning more files.
If we detect any infections on the machine that require a reboot to repair we automatically set Auto-Protect to run in Early Load mode until we declare the machine clean. This automatically protects against any other malware that loads at boot time.
It makes repairing possible for some of the nastier infections but it isn't required to be on. If you don't mind the couple extra seconds of boot time you can turn it on.

 

They aren't the only one that "cheat" so to say, so let's not pick on them for that.