Norton Safe Web vs. Safe Web Lite (both free?)

Is there any functional or detection differences between Norton Safe Web and Safe Web Lite? I see they are both free but there is a registration requirement for Safe Web, not for the Lite version. With safe Web it also appears that a person can make posts or leave feedback about particular sites. Is there any other differences between the two versions?

 

Norton Safe Web is not free. Safe Web Lite is free but there is no block screen in this. Only the toolbar icon changes colour. No alert or blocking screen. Dont know if the detection is same or not but I guess it should be the same.

Thanxx
Naren

 

All the products and services that use Norton Safe Web use the same database, as far as I believe. When you sign up on Norton Safe Web, all you are signing up for is the ability to rate and post about a website.

If you want to have the block screen, use Norton DNS and/or Browser Defender. Both free.

 

Norton DNS is compatible with all browsers - Safe Web Lite is not compatible with FF 4

 

Question is if Norton DNS still blocks many innocent websites and slows the browsing. If not it might be an alternative to Safe Web.

 

Norton DNS broke my hulu. It took me forever to figure this out since some days Hulu would work fine and some days all I would see is red X's instead of Hulu and that was on all systems.
Finally I decided to change the DNS back to OpenDNS and it Hulu again works like a charm. So yeah, no NOrton for me.

 

Is just the sign up free then? Page says free here- http://safeweb.norton.com/

EDIT- well I signed up just to see what happens. Safe Web is just for writing reviews, there is no free installation except for Safe web Lite. Typical Norton crap.

 

It can be marketing "Sign up is free" by the Product is not.

 

If you'd also like protection against exploits, you could try the new version of Browser Defender by PCTools. BD and NSWL share the same protection; BD blocks exploits, though.

 

Browser Defender no longer blocks webpages, at least, non-heuristically detected ones.

 

It blocks flash and pdf exploits, according to this -http://www.pctools.com/forum/showthread.php?69020-Release-of-Browser-Defender-standalone-3.0.0.311&

 

m00nbl00d are u using browsing defender? I am really looking fwd to hearing about it..

 

No, I don't. I use Chromium as my web browser. But, I did install it, and I dislike the toolbar. It's weird.

As it is, for Browser Defender to show ratings, it will require both components installed (BHO and the toolbar). If the user removes the toolbar, then there will be no ratings, and the user won't be protected against phishing web sites, for example. Only the BHO would be providing protection against pdf and flash exploits.

Let's face it, if we think of IE9, with its minimalist interface, a toolbar seems odd, and kind of kills the IE9 "look". It just seems off.

In the past, I suggested to PC Tools to rather have something like AVG LinkScanner, after all, Browser Defender already has a service running in the background, so why not make use of it also for the protection, rather than just for checking for updates?

That way, there would be no need for the toolbar, at all. The user would access Browser Defender settings by clicking a tray bar icon.

Not to mention that if they do it, and if they make Browser Defender scan HTTP traffic (for the current web site, otherwise webmasters will complain ), then it would provide protection regardless of the web browser.

I don't understand why the choice some security vendors take by only providing support for IE and Firefox.

 

absolutely right.. but a few months aqo I tried to install avg link scanner but stopped when it tried to download 100+ mb . dont you think its way to big for what its suppose to do.. that did throw me off

 

I don't think Browser Defender would need to copycat that from AVG LinkScanner.

Regarding LinkScanner's size, we need to take under consideration that it's provided in many language versions, database of known malicious domains (to provide the ratings), and most likely (This may not be true, at all... But, it's just something I was wondered about.) it contains some other implementations that will make the transition from AVG LinkScanner to their other products a smooth process, perhaps? Who knows...

But, I can say that its memory footprint won't go beyond 5.000K in my system. Other similar applications, smaller in size, use a lot more, they turn web browsing into a really awful experience, like slow web browsing.

Maybe AVG could decrease the size, somehow. They won't do it, unless we suggest it, though. For all they care, users are happe because they aren't complaining about it.

-edit-

Next time, you may want to download the offline installer from here -http://free.avg.com/us-en/download.prd-smf It's a smaller size. I believe you were downloading using the web installer.

A new version just came out today!

 

ah awesome. Thanks yes indeed i was trying the web installer

 

Is it still incompatible with FF4?

 

Safe Web Lite is running fine on my system with FF4.