Norton Antivirus/not so bad!

Thank god for all the Wilders trained experts, recommending everyone else use KAV,Ewido,NOD32, PG,RD,WG, etc

I'm sure that alone keeps out millions of hackers daily

 

Hi rjbsec,

Of course, companies like MS and Symantec have the resources to do MUCH more than they are currently doing. But there is no incentive to do so. The concept of "long-term customer relationships" no longer exists. It is basically "take the money and run".

But I find that second and third tier vendors are highly motivated, as they build equity in their companies. It is not surprising to me that all of my primary security products now come from such firms: e.g. Kaspersky, Ewido, DiamondCS, Ghost Security, Greatis, NSClean.

I think that people come to this forum looking for better solutions than what they have, and in most cases I believe they find what they are looking for. These are not "clueless newbies" (a term that the moderators of this forum seem to tolerate more than I think they should), but rather quite knowledgeable users who have found their way to Wilders and are more than smart enough to figure out what they are looking for and how to get it.

My experiences with the average user has been extremely positive. They are quite well informed of their vulnerabilities, they understand that the Internet can be quite dangerous (insofar as privacy issues are concerned), and they are simply looking for recommendations (other than spending the rest of their lives becoming security experts) on how to harden their defenses. No one is looking for perfection - but they are looking for reasonable, practical solutions. Based upon the virus poll, many of these "well informed" users and forum members have opted for AVs like NOD32, Kaspersky, Avast, and others that are not "well known", but highly regarded. Speaking in a condescending manner to these very well informed forum members, does nothing, adds nothing, and is nothing.

I enjoy it when people come to this forum and find what they are looking for. It is a credit to all those forum moderators (who we all know quite well), who give their time and share their knowledge willingly and unselfishly, that there are so many satisified members. (For example, the remarkable work that Kent and Tony Klein have done to augment the functionality of RegDefend). None of these moderators use name-calling or condescension in their messages. They just help. Thanks to all those who have helped me in the past, and have put up with my lack of knowledge in certain areas in order to help me out with my current issues.

Rich

 

Perhaps you may care to review a real-life example where PG/TDS-3 were used to deal with a compromise? (on systems previously protected with Norton AV Corporate Edition). The advice given here and elsewhere may not affect millions but it is nonethelesss of value to many.

 

It always astonishes me how many people come to this forum (and others) and berate the 'average' user, with insults like "clueless", 'boneheaded", lazy", and so on, blaming the 'average' user for a whole range of issues.

Wake up, people, and start showing some respect. The 'average' user does not know everything there is to know about computers, and does not need to, and shouldn't be expected to. A typical computer, loaded with varying amounts of software is a complex thing, and security is a very arcane part of that. A user should only have to learn what is necessary for that user to accomplish what it is he/she wishes to, without being blamed (by those who should know better) for 'failing' to guard against the threats perpetrated by the low-life who populate the internet.

What the 'average' user needs is practical help, and practical training. This can come from many sources, commercial and academic, and there is a case for lobbying your respective governments for financial concessions to support the individual in this.

A successful strategy for the 'average' user consists of (a) practical procedures and prudence, (b) a well-configured system, and (c) suitable software that assists the user and complements the user's 'behaviour'. We're not talking here about over-zealous security software which continually prompts the user to decide about issues he/she doesn't understand (and therefore cannot decide), but software which most of the time quietly goes about its business and works in concert with the user. A more sophisticated user can handle more sophisticated software, for instance, and there is no point in loading several layers of redundant security software on computers which are used on the internet solely for an occasional e-mail.

I run a company which specialises in security advice and implementation to small business and home/home-office users, and we take great care to put in place solutions that work for individual users. Having the user, software and configurations match each other is key to us offering workable, practical and effective solutions.

All of this said, there is a lot national governments could do to alleviate many of the issues its citizens face when using the internet. In particular, by regulating their own ISPs and placing responsibility on them to offer a reasonable level of protection to their customers would work wonders. I realise that would horrify most ISPs, and they would make all the usual claims about how this would be technically impossible, how costs would rise, and how many ISPs would go to the wall as a result. Much of this is hot air, though, and the competitive market economy that exists in many countries for the provision of internet connectivity would ensure prices and choice remain competitive even with new regulation. With suitable protocol-inspection based security monitoring of all traffic passing to and from its customers, an ISP could (be made to) significantly reduce the threats that its customers face (irrespective of where in the world they originate), and that in turn would alleviate (but not eliminate) some of the training burden for the 'average' user.

Of course, this will no doubt stir the indignants and paranoids here to action. C'est la vie

 

Are the security experts in anti-malware companies that smart ?

1. They never succeeded in giving the users a fullproof protection.

2. They created groups of softwares that do basically the same thing : AntiViruses, AntiSpywares, AntiTrojans, AntiKeyloggers, ... and some of these softwares overlap eachother or don't work together. What a BIG MESS !!!
On top of that dubious people created alot of rogue softwares.
Users don't even know what to choose or to combine anymore.
Very confusing for the users, making such a mess.

3. Each software within the same group doesn't do its job either.
Result : users have to use more than one AntiVirus, more than one AntiSpyware, more than one Anti-Trojan, etc. etc. etc.
I only use Windows and Office to do my job, but I have alot of security softwares and additional tools to protect my computer. I hate each of them and consider them as a waste of time.
They are all ballast on my computer and slow down my computer.
And all that trouble for a NOT foolproof protection.

4. Earning money is priority #1 and security is for them just another way of earning money.
They don't even cooperate with each other to make things better for the users.

Recently I have read an article about making better definitions for adware and spyware. What a waste of time. It's simple. I don't need adware AND spyware on my computer.
Why do we need a better definition of adware and spyware programs ? Both are wrong. Period.

Am I a satisfied typical user of security softwares ? NOOOOOO !!!

 

In several of av-comparatives Nav detected 95.69% and in another it detected over 98.00% the test where it detected 98.00% is currently offline but it should return later.

 

This applies to advanced and expert users also - my knowledge only scratches the surface in many areas and I've "lived and breathed" computers for over 20 years.

Basic security is quite simple - run a firewall, load and update an anti-virus scanner, change your browser, use a web-filter (which many firewalls now include) and don't download from anonymous sources. This covers 95%+ of the possible problems.

The main complaint is, I'd suggest, not aimed at those who don't know, but those who don't care ("So what if my PC is sending spam and attacking websites? It doesn't affect me and I don't want to spend money or effort learning anything on security!") - these (fortunately) are in a small minority but do include those who really shoudn't be using a computer at all.

I think most people here would agree. There are those who go "over the top" with security considering their risk profile - but it is very easy to become high-risk also (just downloading files from P2P networks).

Here I'd beg to differ and would point out that you are contradicting what you said previously - security has to match the individual and their program usage. Someone who uses IRC would be upset at an ISP proactively blocking this even though it would be effective at shutting down many zombie networks.

I'm no fan of so-called "Deep Packet Inspection" since this is so easily bypassed by sophisticated malware using encryption. The ISP's role can only be to act on (reported) spam-zombies and systems involved in a DDoS. This can be achieved using simpler statistical monitoring without the privacy issues involved in wholesale traffic inspection.

Well this is going pretty off-topic for a thread discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of a single anti-virus vendor...

 

This thread has drifted off topic a few times a small bit, but all in all it has done really well. I think we had a few bashers along the way but I believe we also have had some knowledgeable persons responding also. There have been discussions on the merits and not so favorite attributes of Norton antivirus. It is refreshing to be able to start a thread that has the potential to explode in a bashing flame war and not see the worse come about. I have reviewed the thread several times and it has stayed pretty civil all the way through. I want to thank all of the members and guests that have and will participate. The tread has run much smoother than I expected and I have the many people here on the forum to thank for taking the time to express your opinions on the threads subject.

thanks
bigc

 

I followed this thread with interest thanks for starting it bigc.