NAV...past glory

Norton Antivirus is a headache, becuase I just want to know why it needs the user to renew their subscription for updates! Instead of doing that, I now use avast antivirus which is trouble free.

 

LOL. why thank you BB

Cheers and Merry Christmas to you...

Blackspear.

 

And to you and your family!
Regards,
Brad.

 

I want to choose what I use, not what some corporate suit bought for the lowest dollar that day. When I first started using my own home computer, which was only 1.5 yrs ago, I went and bought a PC magazine. Whoo Hoo, for 6 bucks I was given tips on XP and some rudimentary stuff on AV's and Firewalls.

I think that PC vendors should include a security book with the PC. I think it could be a selling point. Like hey we will give you an AV and FW and tell you how to use it, and stay safe on the web.

I could never understand how someone could shell out $1000+ dollars and never learn about the product they purchased. But the ignorance is surely there. I have literally met hundreds of people who think that the red and yello box are the only AV's in the world. Kaspersky needs a north american TV ad bad!. Tell them super bowl coming soon. I have seen products spend the money (I think its like a million dollars for 30 secs), but that money gained them way more in revenue afterwards.

Thanks for letting me ramble on
cheers my friends

 

I didn't actually know what eset was untill I just did some reasearch

I'm guessing if you used a thesaurus, it wasn't the once built into Microsoft with all them.

Jimbob

 

http://thesaurus.reference.com/
And another that might interst you....
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dict-e
cheers.

 

Suggestions for BigBuck:

big buck
big-buck
buyback
hogback
big break
buy back
piggyback
big boy
bigwig
be quick
bugbear
go back
big baby
big blow
kickback
big wig
piggy back
beat back
kick back

 

Unfortunately the logfile with Norton & Ewido combo is not checked out yet. Norton is moving some samples to other sample categories in Norton's logfile, so I have to build up my own category lists again from that Norton's logfile. It's very hard work.

Btw, I'm not sure if I have managed to get rid of all Norton files from my disk yet after uninstalling Norton, the free disk space has decreased with 20 Megs after the scan comparing that before I had Norton. I've used jv16 PowerTools and EasyCleaner, but no success. Still no problems now with my PC without Norton.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Ok JB and BB, it is good to expand your vocab, but lets also remember to remain on Topic.

Cheers

Blackspear.

 

Majority of files is left in Documents and Settings (user and all users profile Application Data folder (hidden)) and in Common Files system folder.

 

I've checked these manually, but now my eyes are becoming red and it's not the beer.

Here are those that I've seen left. That "kt" in files size is the same as "kb". The largest file that Norton have left behind was about 5 Megs log in Total Uninstall folder.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

This is a totally off the wall thread in a usually excellent forum. Anyone who makes investment decisions based on this thread deserves to lose their money.

Sometimes a lot of participants in security forums lose tack of what the mainstream user needs and wants. That is probably why Trend Micro is picking up so many recommendations from the talking heads at the big magazines. End users and professional IT managers want good reliable detection if ITW without false alarms. An AV that detects 100% of all ITW, zoo and exotic viruses is worthless if it false alarms and deletes an essential OS component, a trick that Dr. Web has been known to do. In other words, VB100 performance on a consistent basis. They want a product that dows not screw up their machines and they want good tech support. The interface has to be easy to use, not a geekish mess like NOD32 or KAV 4.5, or a advertisement for other products like McAfee. The mainsteam does not care about the abiloity to detect exotic malware that only exists in virus collections.

Believe it or not, Norton AV does most of these thngs well, but needs improvement in the system slowdown category. They are also overcharging for tech support.

The picture will change drasticly when MS releases their first AV product. It is predicted to take 35% of the market in one year and I expect it to have heuristic fatures that surpass everything on the market right now, including the vaulted NOD32.

 

I personally like the layout of NAV, and I think the detection rates are great.
However, my first time trying NAV was the 2004 version. It slowed my DSL Basic (100mbps) down to a crawl. I tried 2005 a month ago and my PC would literally take 5 minutes to start up with very little programs on it (basicly XP Home and MS Office 2003), It would also lock up once in a while. Might have been on my end though Formatted after that.

I wish Microsoft would put a Security Tour on PC's like they have the Windows Tour. People need to learn this stuff, and they need to learn that there is choice. This ain't Russia. I actually liked McAfee too. It came on my Dell, but the anti-virus would not update, I hated being advertised to all the time, and when I went to renew online with my credit card it said that when my renewal was up in another year they would just take it off my card at the then price. That was a no no for me. I dug deep for more info on the credit card thing on their site and found that the only way to stop this from taking place was to make your purchase and then before the next renewal send them a notice not to debit your card ( hope it works). So I decided not to buy.

Maybe Norton and McAfee are making their own problems by having expensive support compared to other AV's, having bad policies of advertising to you(re: McAfee), and from what I understand both having updater problems, which should be the easiest part of the program to make.

In closing, picking on NAV and McAfee is just human nature. We tend to all back the little guy, get him to the top, and when he is there we try to tear him back down.

 

Per my previous posts, the firewall and antivirus should be part of windows. Microsoft should support these products for the life of the OS. This may add $15-$20 per copy of windows, but still cheaper than $30/year on AV/FW solutions.

This all-in-one approach to security will work for mainstream AND corporate users.

SYMC's strength is in the consumer line, not corporate. Perhaps you can give me a specific example of an AV that would falsely detect a critical windows component as malware. Almost all false alarms involve non-windows data added to the hard drive.

 

I understand where you are going Nod32_9, and for many people it would probably work out well. The one thing that bothers me about this is that it gives Microsoft 1 more thing to add to their Monopoly.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you're speaking of {I got in on this discussion late and don't want to read through all four pages}, BUT .. **ALL** AntiVirus Scanners will have false positives from time to time, including NOD32. It is silly to blast an AV for an occasional f.p. because they all do it. The main concern is, do they correct their mistake in timely fashion, and my experience with Symantec has always been that YES they do respond quickly to correct f.p. mistakes. JMHO ..

 

Driver, can you explain this part? I'm a bit confused... specific examples would be kinda nice too.

 

Just added Norton & Ewido combo to my scan table and corrected some minor errors in Norton scan results because of the poor logfile.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Its Diver, not Driver.

I think the statement needs little explanation. The purpose of an AV is to find viruses (and other malware) and not to warn on benign files. For example, you could have an AV that detected everything, but has a false alarms every time it is run. That would be a worthless program. At the other extreme would be an AV that never has a false alarm but has a terrible detection rate. By the way, VB100 is denied for a single false alarm. Many AV's with high detection rates fail VB100 for that reason.

Dr. Web has been known for false alarms on OS components. If the component gets deleted the system does not boot. Supposedly, that program has improved lately.

However, there seems to be an obsession in security forums where AV's are ranked solely by detection rates. Without testing for false alarms on known benign files this kind of testing is incomplete, possibly to the extent of being worthless.

A lot of KAV users have complained that the latest version of Mirc gets detected as riskware. I don't know why.

 

A good av has an option not to delete infected or suspicious files in On-Access or On-Demand scan. False positives doesn't make a headache to me.

Btw, I don't think that DrWeb is doing so many FP:s anymore, no more than NOD or BitDefender does.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

I have no knowledge of these false alarms and I have been using the good Doctor for several years now. Have you personal knowledge of these false positives?

Sounds like you have not used the program recently. The latest version in particular seems to give very few false positives and Dr Web's support team seem very much quicker now in correcting them.

In addition they are generally very easy to spot and the exclude function within the program does work

 

Still very satisfied with VSE 8.0i and Ewido 3.0 combo.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Diver....
My mistake, I'm sorry...
But with regards to mIRC, even McAfee's VSE's default firewalling rules block all IRC ports (I'm sure FF will concur)... the point is most IRC newbies just jump onto the wagon, not knowing what kind of harm is coming to them. That's just giving default protection to any "noobs" so to speak. Yes, they could give an extra sentence in there alerts saying that IRC communications itself is dangerous if you don't know what you're doing...
But I guess that's another matter altogether, that AVs never explain what the virus alerts exactly mean, and you have to go to the online virus encyclopediae to check for what the virus does(Which is why I wanted to know whether there was a "downloadable" virus encyclopedia for offline viewing)
[off topic]
sanity worm code has been released in the underground i think
[/off topic]