Norton Antivirus/not so bad!

I'm not going to discuss which AV software is the very best.

Most test environments to test AV softwares aren't sufficient to evaluate AV softwares.
Creating a sufficient and controlled test environment is too much work and who is willing to do that for just an AV test.

The winner is always an accidental winner, the one that detects/removes the biggest number of viruses in a specific test environment and could be indeed a loser in another test environment. It's just a matter of being lucky.
That's why each different test has a different winner. Isn't that RIDICULOUS

Besides that, I don't trust any of these tests.
Too many commercial influences choosed the winner already in advance during one of these tests.
Any AV company would to do anything to put their AV software on top of the list.
That's the real business world and real business men don't like to be lucky and honesty is for losers.
Even when a test is done by users, we still have the problem of an insufficient test environment.

To trust a test, I would like to see :
1. A list of all fingerprints in the database of each AV scanner in the test.
2. A list of all viruses in the test environment.
I have never seen these lists after a test. Why not ? Too many viruses maybe ? Something to hide or what ?
I don't even care what the answer is. I just want to see these lists.

What do we really know about all these AV scanners ?
Nothing IMO. What we do have is alot of wild guesses, based on personal experiences and endless discussions in forums about which AV software is the very best.
NOD32, KAV, NAV, Bitdefender, Antivir, Avast, ... just make your choice, it doesn't matter, because there is no scientific proof, which one is the very best.
The heuristic scanning make the AV scanners even more misty and harder to evaluate.

AVG Free is the very best scanner. Give me some real proof, that I'm wrong.

 

( by ErikAlbert)

AVG Free is the very best scanner. Give me some real proof, that I'm wrong. [/QUOTE]


Better yet you made the claim you prove it is the best. I have used AVG before and I know it is not the best prove me wrong.

 

Of what, my friend!?

For leaving threats in systems?

 

Nevermind I was challenging WSF. I just gave my vision on AV softwares.
I have to go now. My shrink and two male nurses want me back in my cell. (End of Internet Therapy).

 

To trust a test, I would like to see :
1. A list of all fingerprints in the database of each AV scanner in the test.
Contact IBK,publisher of av-comparatives test
2. A list of all viruses in the test environment.
Contact IBK,publisher of av-comparatives test
I have never seen these lists after a test. Why not ? Too many viruses maybe ? Something to hide or what ?
I don't even care what the answer is. I just want to see these lists.
If antivirus vendors trust him, there is nothing to hide i guess.
We also trust IBK and his tests. So far they were always within my expectations.

What do we really know about all these AV scanners ?
Nothing IMO. What we do have is alot of wild guesses, based on personal experiences and endless discussions in forums about which AV software is the very best.
NOD32, KAV, NAV, Bitdefender, Antivir, Avast, ... just make your choice, it doesn't matter, because there is no scientific proof, which one is the very best.
The heuristic scanning make the AV scanners even more misty and harder to evaluate.
Oh i can tell you much about them,their strong points,their weaknesses,their overall detection,their heuiristic capabilities,overall design etc...

AVG Free is the very best scanner. Give me some real proof, that I'm wrong.
We could argue about that,but IBK test shows it all. Also lack of good packer support does it's job. But people still use it. Makes you wonder huh

 

Hi all,

Let's be quite clear here. I, and others, who have reported their negative experiences with Norton AV are no more "bashing" Norton than the people who are supporting it are acting as "apologists". So, I would appreciate it if there was less name-calling. Anyone can play that game. What I am personally most interested in is actual experiences with products - not labelling.

As I reported earlier, I would have to be totally out-of-my mind to recommend Norton AV in any way or fashion given my personal experiences with the product and the experiences of my friends - many of whom I had to spend many long hours with, assisting them in cleaning their machines. In all instances, other top AV/ATs, such as Kaspersky, Ewido, TDS-3, easily identified trojans/keyloggers that sliced through Norton AV, like a hot knife through butter. (These were the most current versions of Norton AV with their most current database).

Now, this many be disconcerting to Norton users who may be relying on the product, and my recommendation to them is to get a good backup real-time AT (e.g. BOClean, Ewido), if they want to have additional protection. Another course of action, is to purchase another AV. Or, they can stand pat. That is up to them.

Whatever the case, I think it is extremely ill-advised for Wilders forum members to begin suppressing other members reports (e.g., by threatening to quit the forum, name-calling or otherwise), just because some members don't like to hear these accounts (for what reason, I do not know). For gosh sakes, we are trying to build strong defenses, not defenses that are "not so bad". These accounts are real, and there are members (such as myself) who are interested in hearing about these real-life experiences, whatever the product might be.

I think I trust each member to be able to make their own decision based upon their own individual research.

Rich

 

I think the biggest gripe that many users have with NAV is simply that NAV does not offer as much value for money as other AVs - At least for me, it is quite high priced, and there do exist AVs which offer more features at same or lesser price.

This, however, does not affect NAV's performance at detecting malware at all, so please dont take me wrongly.

Thanks,
FC

 

Here's a typical story.

Some clueless newbie owns Norton because it comes with his computer. He does something boneheaded and he gets infected, obviously he chooses to blame it on his AV.

Angry, he decides to learn something about security (as much as he is smart enough to learn in a few months anyway).Presto! He now is an expert, promoting the virtues of "pro-active defense" and the superiority of KAV because NAV failed him once back when he was a much more cluesless newbie

It is now his duty to preach to the uncoverted on how NAV failed him once back in his newbie days....

 

Another story:

A regular PC user has had Norton for years and using Liveupdate has updated his virus definitions exactly as stipulated by Symantec. As far as he knows his PC is properly protected by a well known and popular product ... he actually only knows about a few, Norton, McAfee, PC-cillin, ones that he has seen in his local PC store whilst shopping.
He doesn't actually know that his PC still holds some viruses despite his careful use of Norton but finds this out when he does an online scan with another product at a website he came across.
He starts to think that maybe there is something better out there and soon learns that actually it's not so safe to rely on virus updates maybe once a week or so - and that some products actually offer hourly/daily updates, (he had never actually been able to speak to anyone about his former product, only visit an endless list of pre-assigned questions and answers).
He starts to take an interest in more knowledgeable protection of his PC and gets some useful guidance on protection against trojans and spyware, (something he had wrongly assumed that Norton was taking care of), so he tells others about his experience and praises other products on the basis of his enlightened experience.
Is he an expert now? No of course not!
Is he a stupid newbie? No not that either - he is just someone who has been putting his trust in so-called experts and found that really his trust was probably misplaced.
Are we surprised that he wants to tell others about how he found a better way? Not really.

(I suspect that for "Norton" you could substitute a number of other names in this post).

 

Indeed. You can tell your story by replacing Norton with practically any other AV ( up to and including NOD32 and KAV), it just happens to be Norton most of the time because that's what most popular. I'm not really sure if the other niche AVS are really "better" or if it's because the people using them protect themselves in other ways such that it isn't really relevant what AV they are using.

Only way to test , install KAV/NOD on all dell computers.

So you think putting your trust in a non-expert, non-stupid newbie is better?
. Just kidding.

Not suprised no. But is his way now really better? I think that's open to debate. Is his new AV really that much better? Or is his "interest in more knowledgeable protection of his PC" doing the job?

Are people acting too emotionally because they are angry AV x found something AV y didnt? Have they tested the hyptothesis that the reverse could never happen?

I personally don't buy indidivual stories of "AV x found something AV Y didn't" vairity to justify the superiority of AVs.

You might as well decide what number to bet all your money on in a casino , after just watching one throw of the dice. It's a crap shoot.

 

I don't consider myself an expert by any means.
I used Norton AV from the time I started with computers up until 2004. I never had an infection or any problems. Norton is a great anti-virus. That is why it has been around forever and remains one of the top selling AV's on the market.

The reason I stopped is, because I wanted to try something new and I found NOD32. I had gotten used to Norton taking a few hours to scan my pc, so when NOD scanned the whole thing in under 20 minutes, I was highly impressed.

I also run backup scanners of F-Prot, Bitdefender, and PC-Cillin. I have used AVG and AVAST on people's systems that do not want to buy NOD/F-prot from me.

We run Norton Corporate Edition where I work and we have not had any problems with it.

IMO, one of the only problems with Norton is that it takes so long to scan and it relies too heavily on definition files to catch viruses. Other than that, It is a great AV.

 

Everyone is missing the point:

In this real case, it was a brand-new, one-month old machine (which came with Norton AV) with the lastest updated version of Norton that totally missed trojan/keyloggers that were clearly identified by several products: Kaspesky, Ewido, TDS-3 (btw, I recommend all of these products ). KAV gets double kudos for picking up fragments that were stored in ADS.

Now, I ask the average Joe who is frequenting this thread, what do you recommend to your friend?

1) Ah, just forget it. Norton aint' so bad. So what that it didn't stop the trojan/keyloggers from getting on your system and so what that it didn't identify them during a complete scan. No product is perfect.

2) Well, seeing as several products were able to identify the trojan/keyloggers, maybe it is a good idea to change to one of these products. Kaspersky looks really good because not only did it catch the various modules but it also caught the fragments that were being hidden in the ADS. Maybe, just to be sure you should also get Ewido for a backup AT, just in case ... you know, your financial information is really important to you so why not spend a few dollars more to get some good backup protection. While we, are at it, let me show you these products called ProcessGuard and RegDefend which prevents malicious programs from installing system services and drivers and well as instantiating themselves in the registry.

Well, I guess I could have blamed my friend for the problem and told him to read a few hundred books on security so he is no longer "clueless" like all of us really dumb users. But instead of blaming him for being so stupid, I decided to blame the software (may The Lord forgive me for doing this), and he upgraded his defense with KAV, RegDefend and ProcessGuard. So far, so good. We'll see.

Rich

 

That is probably the "key" in the issue where the non-savvy PC user is involved - most simply do not know what the options are and how to optimise their PC protection.
I guess that is why forums such as Wilders are so useful, such a shame that I took so long to find it!
Let's welcome all comment and debate, as it is from such contributions that interest, enquiry and search are grown to the benefit of all those who might otherwise have found themselves unprotected ... too late!

 

This, I do not think, has anything do do with how savvy a user is.

In the AV comparatives:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2005_02.php

KAV was able to identify 98.6% of the trojans in the test while NAV was able to identify 91.5%. So put to put this in another way:

1) KAV will fail once in about 100 encounters with trojans.
2) NAV will fail once in about 10 encounters with trojans (10 times out of 100).

This is really quite a difference. In my friend(s)' case, it happened. It is really too bad that some people on this forum have to resort to name calling (the last refuge for someone who is trying to save face) in order to defend against a mathematical probability. There is a reason that people run multiple defenses (AV/AT). That is to guard against this problem. My own preference is to run KAV alongside Ewido though NAV with Ewido will probably yield similar results. What I don't understand is this concept that NAV is not at fault. It clearly has weaknesses. And I have witnessed them first hand. The AV comparative merely served to confirm.

Rich

 

There is simply no way that most people have enough time in their lives to become "security experts' (just like most people don't spend their lives learning how to become expert locksmiths). Most people are just trying to earn a living and get by.

The strategy that is normally used in real-life (and is quite practical), is to buy locks that can withstand the most types of break-ins (Kryptonite is favored by bicyclists and bolt locks by home-owners). Some people augment this by purchasing alarms. And when the lock or alarm fails (e.g. Kryptonite), the manufacturer is at fault - not the user. Of course, all locks can fail (users realize this), and when they do, it is good to have a backup (I have a bolt lock and a regular door lock on my door).

Rich

 

You are saying that 80% of users with infected computers are novices in security and Norton and other companies ,which preinstall their soft are not to blame for incompetence of inexperienced users.Guys,did you comprehend what you have said? Novices ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE VERSED in computers and security soft is meant to help them to become computer-savvy. If you (Norton, MaCafee, Pcillin-any company you like) see that pre-installation causes some misunderstanding and troubles with security en masse ,why not take this fact into consideration and NOT pre-install AVs leaving this at a new user’s discretion .Ah?! Do you really think that new comers in PCs should adjust to “high standards” of Norton-Macafee-Pcillin and not on the contrary? Who exists for whom? Yes, if we admit that all users exist for making big businesses more richer then there is no problem-we live to support high living standards of capitalists and their hangers-on. If we dare presume that a user has a right to demand something from a manufacturer so the picture will be different. If 80 % of “fools” can’t orient in the soft and defend their machines from all that infectious stuff, please, be so kind to help’em , make some pop-up windows screaming “Your PC in danger!-Prolong your subscription or you will die!”And instruct all Norton-Macafee-Pcillin vendors to instruct consumers that they have to update their AVs. A couple of days I watched an ad on the 5-th channel of Ukrainian TV where Ukrainian National Antivirus(very modest title, isn’t it?) was being advertised.The manager proudly said that without legal purchase no update of UNA is available –everything is blocked-NO Passaran in a word…And after that he announced how stupid some users are-their legal!!! Customers complain complain that their machines are infected. Now his dialogue with acustomer:
-Have you ever updated UNA?
-Nope. Should I have?
His conclusion was obvious –oh those silly newbies .But exuse me, guys, you ‘ve just said that only legally purchase UNA can work. So these “stupid” novices WERE NOT instructed to update the antivirus. And who is stupid now? UNA director even wasn’t aware that having said such a nonsense ,he revealed his inadequacy .
I am not a big fan of Micro$oft and all multinationals ,but I wish M$ every success in making a good AV –I hope One care will black-jack Norton, Macafee and Pcillin making them move and create a worthy alternative.
It is moving to observe how US residents defend their domestic products. Though dishonest tricks can be seen everywhere. One time Macafee called Bitdefender a virus, another(a couple of weeks ago) Google announced Opera browser as “anti-American”(I can imagine what an ordinary US resident can feel about a browser bearing evil against their country).Later they apologized saying ‘WE have mistaken” .Is it “free market”? Do you consider such “rules” of the game fair? Isn’t it disgusting?
I am not off-topic –I am just truing to expound why it is not customers are to adjust to HIS MAJESTY Norton ,but it is Norton is to adapt its masterpiece to us-stupid,unskilled and totally ignorant users.
Cheers,
Have a nice summer

 

They'll have to do better than their Spyware beta - had it up-to-date on two desktops until yesterday when I put Spybot through its paces and it found 5 pieces of "spyware" that Microsoft had not detected in its scans.

 

Exactly WHAT 'spyware' did SpyBot claim to detect that MSAS didn't? I suspect it is just tracking cookies.

MSAS is a derivative of Giant AntiSpyware and in its current (Beta 1) form is basically that product, but without cookie scanning. It is yet to be seen whether MS add cookie scanning in Beta 2 or the final release - for now they are concentrating on executable spyware/adware.

Whatever you think of MS or other vendors, I think you will find that MSAS is able to detect/clean/prevent-from-installing much more spyware than SpyBot.

 

Two were "Avenue A Inc" and "Double Click", can't now remember the other 3 - I know that the two mentioned are politely called "tracking cookies" but they are also used for passing information to third-party advertisers etc and I don't want that, so I certainly consider them "spyware"; I didn't give my permission to have them installed on my PC's (nor was I asked!).

 

Trying to extend theortical tests with real life performance is always risky. It is unclear if better test results really map with better real life protection.

Some of the pitfalls for example as being mentioned in the Jotti thread.

Statistics is a tricky business, but a beginner's mistake is to try to apply stats which apply for one situation to another totally different situations

Yes Norton has weaknesess, so does every piece of software out there. To think that if a newbie starts out with KAV he wouldnt run into the same problems shows a fundemantal failure in understanding why people get infected.

Hint , it's seldom about the brand of AV they use.


PS
I can show you first hand stories of people running KAV and still getting infected. What does that prove?

 

While I won't go into the relative security exposure from cookies vs. executable spyware, as there are many views on that, your comment re giving the cookies permission is not wholly true - you can set your permission for these and other cookies being installed into IE by configuring IE properly. The mechanics of doing so differ between different versions of IE and Windows, but one of these should work for you...

If you have WinXP, open Internet Options and go to the Privacy page. There, press the Advanced button, check "Override automatic cookie handling" and set third party cookies to 'Block' or 'Prompt' as desired.

If you have WinMe or Win2K, you can control cookies via the Security page of Internet Options (by setting custom options for the Internet zone).

If you have Win95 or Win98, you can control cookies via the Advanced page of Internet Options.

Other browsers have their own way for you to set your cookie options.

 

I take your point, but I do not accept that by "failing to configure IE properly", (in some people's view), I and the thousands of other so affected gave permission for those trackers to be installed on my PC.
My view is that I should be asked to "opt-in" if I desire, not find out later what has happened and be required to "opt-out", all the time with concerted efforts being made to opt me back in against my will.

However I digress, the thread was about Norton.

 

Indeed. Well said.

Looks like someone took responsibility , and i wonder if that's what's making the difference and not all the cool toys.

 

I think that is a bit harsh, many people have absolutely no comprehension as to what is out there just waiting to cause them grief. In many instances the "authorities" and those who benefit commercially from such people do little or nothing to help them to become aware.

Ask the average man in the street about viruses and he will probably have some basic idea, but speak to him about "worms", "trojans" "phishing" and "keyloggers" and he will have no idea of what you are talking about ... and why should he if no one has ever bothered to inform him?

With businesses almost throwing PC's and software at an unsuspecting public just waiting to "go online", much more needs to be done to educate people as to what is needed and why, not to ridicule them because they are unaware.

 

Following your rationale we should not bother with famine relief, sex education, aids awareness etc etc.
It is not that the majority of people are "lazy" or "unwilling" it is that they do not know and that is something that we could and should do something about.
I am not talking about just the government when I talk of "authorities", what of, for example, the ISP's - do they not have the opportunity to do much more to prevent the spread of viruses, spam, phishing etc, yet do they? Do they endeavour to educate their subscribers in the means of protecting themselves?
Have you ever tried to get action taken on a domain-holder by their Registrar when the domain is being used for illegal activity?
Do the Consumer Protection "authorities" make an effort to educate Joe Public about internet security, do the banks, the building societies ... I could go on.
Yes "the buck stops" with the individual user but in many, if not most instances, his failure to act is not entirely his own fault.