Norton Antivirus/not so bad!

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by bigc73542, May 20, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    (first of all I am not supporting use of this program. that said) I am really getting annoyed by all of the self nominated norton antivirus bashers. I realize it is a large program but that doesn't hurt the way it works.

    check the links and please tell me what is wrong with the detection rates of norton.

    VB

    AV-comparatives

    West Coast Check-Mark
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2005
  2. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    Hi BigC,

    I have no idea how or why Norton AV works in the way it does. I do know, for a fact, that I had many severe leakages when I was using it a year and a half ago, prior to switching to KAV. I used Norton for a long time because I thought it was the best. Then, after having several very bad problems, I decided to look around and see what was going on. I came upon Widers and at that point realized that I had better options.

    Recently, by friend had a stupendous leakage while running Norton AV (it came with his laptop that was purchased about a month ago). Given what I saw, after running Ewido, TDS-3, and KAV, there is absolutely no way I could ever recommend Norton to a friend or acquaintence (in this particular case I recommend KAV 5.0 MP3, RegDefend, and ProcessGuard, which he adopted). There is just no way. I couldn't possible ignore my own incidents or that of my friends. He was shocked to see the keyloggers and other trojans on his system that KAV, Ewido, and TDS-3 were able to detect.

    Others may choose to recommend Norton AV based upon how well it has done on tests. This is, of course, valid. But I couldn't face my friends if I ever recommended Norton and one of them had the same problems as the ones I have described. What I do is this: I recommend the setup that I have chosen, because it is the one that I honestly feel provides excellent protection. Of course, others may have completely different experiences as myself and will recommend differently. Some people recommend Hondas and others recommned Toyotas. And so the world turns. :)

    Cya,
    Rich
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2005
  3. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    IMHO, for me - nothing is wrong with Norton Anti-Virus.

    -It has good detection rates
    -It is a bit heavy (but why do I have 1GB of RAM anyway ;))

    And it ran fine on my system as well.

    The only thing I do not like about Norton is the price - It is out of my reach, and other AVs provide slightly better features at a lower price.

    Besides, in my country, Symantec keeps raising the renewal price every year.
     
  4. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    The first norton av I ever used came on floppy disc for dos. And I have used it of and on for a lot of years with no trouble except having to update live update because it quit working for a couple of days. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but from the experience I have had with it I can't see what the problem is. I don't want you to get the wrong idea here, I don't use norton now either but in my case the reason is that I have active license's for at least eight av's right now or I might would be useing it. Granted symantec spends a lot on advertising but if their product didn't perform it would not sell. And symantecs profits were up something like thirty percent this year. They must be making a fair product to stay up near the top all of these years.
     
  5. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma

    I will agree symantec products are fairly pricey.
     
  6. Vikorr

    Vikorr Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Posts:
    662
    The problem with NAV is not as a virus engine (although KAV outpoints it well and truly), as it does have excellent results.

    Nortons 'downfall' as an AV is it's poor detection rates of trojans, which in this day and age are the more common and the more serious threat (almost all the most common 'virii' posted on AV boards are in fact worms or trojans).

    See these for what I mean :

    http://www.claymania.com/tests-trojan.html
    http://www.anti-trojan-software-reviews.com/trojan-detection-test.htm

    If you wonder at why there is such a difference in detection rate percentages of trojans, it seems to stem from the type of trojans that are used for testing.

    If you test using the generic trojans then the percentage detection rate increases. If you test using the nastiest trojans (which is really what you want to protect from), then the detection rate decreases.

    Some trojans can now protect themselves from being read...which means the only way to detect them is with a memory scanner AFTER they've infected your machine and loaded - normally only AS/AT's have memory scanners. Some hide in NTFS streams which almost no AV or AT are currently capable of scanning (TDS3, TH, and Ewido being the current exceptions that I know of). Some inject themselves into running processes (TH seems to be the best for cleaning these), some install rootkits which are used to remotely access your machine....of course the best way to prevent this sort of stuff is with things like PG, PrevX and Regdefend...but if you are using purely a AV (which the vast majority do) instead of an AV&AT, then Nortons can fail you badly.

    Having said that, I currently use Nortons, but with an AT also. May eventually switch to KAV.

    PS can't find the page, but there was a AV comparison that showed, once even the free AV's are combined with an AT like Ewido, the difference between detection rates of them and KAV (top rated AV) became neglible.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2005
  7. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    Hi Vikorr,

    Good points. One could recommend Norton with a good AT such as Ewido, BOClean, or TDS-3 (both TDS-3 and Ewido were able to detect the keylogger and other trojans on my friend's machine). But when it comes to recommending a product set, it just seems like it makes more sense to just recommend KAV (which covers AVs, trojans, and spyware very well), and possible ProcessGuard and RegDefend if the user is interested. I do not see any reason to recommend Norton other than possibily to help it maintain its marketshare. ;)

    Anyway, your I believe your comments are on target .. at least they well represent my own experiences.

    Rich
     
  8. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I used Norton for a while, 5 or 6 years ago, & liked it. What I did NOT like was the condescension & aloofness I encountered when I sought support from Symantec.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2005
  9. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Symantec/Norton is not all that bad in Trojan detection. If you see http://www.av-comparatives.org (the latest On-Demand Test), you'll see that it does quite respectably at detecting Trojans.

    Norton does not clean the registry entries of malware at all.......but some others dont, either (e.g. TrendMicro)

    No offense intended :)

    Overall NAV is a good program - good at detecting Adware, Viruses and Trojans. But it still is a bit pricey.

    However, I would also like to point out that Norton doesnt have a very good unpack engine. That is not too good for my personal needs.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2005
  10. Infinity

    Infinity Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    2,651
    I'll never use Norton again...there are some better Av's out there and userfriendlyness isn't the most important thing in Internet Security imo...it's very difficult to have it both ways.

    But just like everybody else, my box came preinstalled with norton too...and the day I switched Norton, I became active member on security boards ;)

    /edit: apparently they improved a lot in the last year so my statement was for 2002-2003 version...and for that means it was the SystemWorks suite.

    to answer BigC: nothing wrong at this moment with Norton Antivirus...just some bad experiences that's all...and I don't consider myself as a basher of Norton...just threw my thoughts in the group :D
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2005
  11. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    I've used Norton Antivirus 2001 and 2002 on my system and while I encountered no serious problems I would mention the following:
    • LiveUpdate problems - I encountered these and plenty of others have also. AV's have got to be kept up-to-date so an ineffective LiveUpdate means an ineffective AV (and that is probably where most problems regarding undetected malware come from).
    • Bloat - NAV2002's installer weighed in at over 20MB if my memory serves me correctly, a similar size to the current version of Kaspersky Personal Pro for a lot less functionality.
    • Support - either Symantec has one of those email filters that blackhole every incoming email, or they think customer service is something best outsourced to another planet - no emails I sent ever received a response. In addition, support for their other products has been poor - e.g. Norton SpeedDisk in SystemWorks 2000 did not receive an update to work with Win2K SP4, leaving it useless. Other companies have done worse (PowerQuest being a notable example) but I would not wish to spend any further money with companies not prepared to address basic Windows updates.
    • Advertising - the products most heavily advertised are going to offer the worst value for money, be they anti-virus software or anything else. With the Norton pre-installs, one has to ask why computer vendors are bothering to include it - I strongly suspect they get a payment from Symantec for doing so, which would make good business sense (targetting new users) and also explains its higher price.
    Norton has come a long way since the days of the original Norton Disk Doctor or Norton Desktop for Windows, however I feel that it has been in the wrong direction for most users.
     
  12. maddawgz

    maddawgz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Posts:
    1,276
    Location:
    Earth
    sucked the juices rite out my pc !! o_O
     
  13. TopperID

    TopperID Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,527
    Location:
    London
    It might hurt the way your computer works! If you look at a HJT log of someone with Norton AV & FW you can see the quite ludicrous number of services, auto-runs, BHOs and Toolbars it installs. With all that complexity no wonder it goes wrong (it did with me) and then you are left at the mercy of Symantec's shamelessly bad technical support - some users even pick up the phone and end up paying through the nose for that as well.

    What use is Norton's good detection rate if you end up having to uninstall it and buy something else before your licence is up (I did)? Norton is too much of a 'gamble' and therefore deserves a bit of a 'kicking'!
     
  14. bsilva

    bsilva Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Posts:
    238
    Location:
    MA, USA
    One of the biggest problem is their updates. We have them currently running on our servers and we are looking at sophos to replace them.
     
  15. iwod

    iwod Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Posts:
    708
    Here is my case... I don't have a proper documented backup for some case I mention here. But this is what i felt and why i dislike them,

    Bloat : They add useless junk into their AV everyyear and try to sell a new version out of it.

    Resources Heavy : 2005 did a job of reducing it. But 2003/2004 did a much better job in triple the resource usage. So after all it is still heavy.

    Slow Reponse time: If Mcafee can do it better. What can't they?

    Recent release of Enterprise Symentec was a joke. The ram usuage was even higer than KAV! Not to mention CPU resources nearly triple the previous version.

    False marketing: Their are some theory that columnist or magazine writer get paid more for writing a good reviwer on these product. The fact they mention Norton doesn't take up much resources in every review and easiest GUI to use. While all other product who have much lower resources never get mentioned to their advantage!. It is either these people dont know a damn thing or they are writing false review.

    Detection rate / Real time monitor: It is good. But That is only when you do a Full system scan. The Real time monitor have poor unpacking engine. And misses a lot of stuff.

    Expensive: Why do i have to pay much more why i get NOD32 or even avast for free?? Both did a much better job than Norton. ( Remember norton have a lower detection rate before the current av compartive review. )

    But after all. If norton is the only thing you can get / have. Than i see no reason to dump it for the noob. Coz having a Av is better than not having one. Since noob never listen to avast and always think norton is the best. And i got sick and tired of explaning.

    Edit: More after reeading Paranoid2000 post. Symantec and never update Liveupdate itself Automatically !!. For 2004/ 2003 and Enterprise i have manucally download it to aviod the Security hole in liveupdate itself. And if you don't knew much about AV. How were you suppose to know that?
     
  16. Acadia

    Acadia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Posts:
    4,048
    Location:
    SouthCentral PA
    I use Norton and here is my opinion of it: excellent AV, one of the best; incredibly lousy tech support; worst feature, very hard to completely uninstall.

    Acadia
     
  17. nod32_9

    nod32_9 Guest

    Why pay more when one can use Avast Home for FREE!

    The primary reason SYMC stays at the top is because of advertising. They also pay the big PC vendors $ to bundle the SYMC crap with all new PCs. Since NAV is a royal pain to remove, most people just fork over the $ for the annual subscription.

    Let's talk about McAfee if you want to dig up the "best detection" line of argument. McAfee is often priced much lower than NAV. It is the clear winner when compared against PIGGY Norton.

    Most custom PC builders wouldn't touch NAV with a 10 ft pole.
     
  18. Randy_Bell

    Randy_Bell Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Posts:
    3,004
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA
    I see all that BigC has managed to do is to create another thread opportunity for hostiles like you to bash some more .. :mad: :mad:
     
  19. Hard Rocker

    Hard Rocker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Posts:
    258
    Location:
    Quebec, CANADA
    :) I have been using both Norton AV & Firewall for part of 2004. ( It came installed on my new PC ) and now have the 2005 version AV & Firewall. All I can say is, other than their pathetic support ...... ( it's a crap shoot .... depending on who you get on the other end of the phone ) the product has performed well for me.

    I also have A2 Personal .... Trojan Hunter ... & the free Ewido scanner mind you ..... just in case !! :D

    HR :cool:
     
  20. Ianb

    Ianb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Posts:
    232
    Location:
    UK
    Once you disable the start up scan it runs like a dream, there is a thread about that here somewhere.

    Avast can't touch NAV for detection (2005 version) but I will admit for the value Avast Free and Ewido (paid) is probably a fair alternative.

    It all went wrong for NAV late in the 2003 version when it started to introduce HEAVY prog updates and viri (which was targeted to disable the biggest AV out there) became popular.
    They got lazy with 2004 which was simply a rebadged 2003 but a LOT HEAVIER. This was when people started to abandon ship and rightly so.

    They've made great strides with 2005 and it is back to being a very good AV. Unfortunately (for them) people have moved on and are not keen to go back after past experiences.

    I'm not saying anybody should go back but you should at least trial the 2005 version to see the improvements.

    NAV REMOVAL ?

    ADD REMOVE (Not forgetting Live Update)
    Delete any Symantec - NAV folders
    Clean registry with Reg Seeker
    Easy ;)
     
  21. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Norton have a very good detection, but I don't like the usage resources and some others things, like GUI problems, LiveUpdate, etc...

    If I can find better solutions out there in relation to all the aspects, why using a worse program?

    Conclusion: A big company as Norton must have better products to offer to its customers.
     
  22. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    Heh.Detection rate between avast! and Norton is not far off, as you may think. Avast! certainly can touch Norton and many other av products.

    Anyway, Norton does providea good protection.


    tECHNODROME
     
  23. nod32_9

    nod32_9 Guest

    Avast has more frequent updates, plus each update is less than 30 K. I think piggy NAV is +300 K.

    I have more faith in Avast because it uses a MUCH better update engine. Have seen too many NAV systems with non-functional LIVE UPDATE.
     
  24. Ianb

    Ianb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Posts:
    232
    Location:
    UK
    You only need to look at AV Comparatives to see the difference.

    Avast 90.81% NAV 98.31%

    You can talk about lightness, updates etc etc etc all day long but it is a fact that Norton wins hands down on detection.

    IM NOT KNOCKING AVAST just telling it as it is.
     
  25. nod32_9

    nod32_9 Guest

    Hate to say this, but the AVERAGE user removes an application via Windows' Add/Remove screen. Since NAV is geared toward mainstream users, it SHOULD uninstall properly without resorting to a registry cleaner or deleting other NAV-related folders/applications!
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.