Norton Internet Security 2009

show me some somewhat credible evidence that its detection is poor. I mean are we thinking of its detection ability based on the past or present. All AV vendors work to improve their product, some better then others, but I as of today have only seen positive reviews on its detection ability. That doesnt mean it is but show me.

 

That made me ROFL.

 

All I find is AV-Comparitives and this and this and this and this.

 

I guess 1.6 Million samples just is not enough. damn bias tests.

 

they are just tests, like in school. I've seen people pass with A's but can't apply what they have learned in real life. Same is true of AV's tests, they prove they can stop x malware but today Y malware might have came out, you need a student that can adapt to the changing face of problems in the real world in AV language that is heuristics...who ever can adapt wins...or has a safe computer

 

Hence why Heuristics are tested. and in all tests with that so far Norton and Avira are the top as of late.

Norton walking away with 99% with Heuristics detecting on high. not shabby at all for adapting.

tho the real test I'm waiting for is Proactive. that should shed more light on Norton and on the others ability to catch in the wild.

 

A question that I haven't seen here before, but maybe someone is able to answer it

I have two months left on my license but I want to upgrade the license now. Will I loose the days left or will the 365 new days just be added to the days left by the previous license? Those really nice Indian or Pakistani Norton helpdesk people... I don't know if they understood what I meant

 

Last time I tried this was for my Father in law back in 2006 but it just added his days to it. so he ended up with 380 some odd days.

 

And you receive how many samples each day...?

All the people who say Norton's detection is crap never ever supply any evidence for that, only vague stories that prove and say nothing....

 

Thanks, Fajo!

 

Read AV Comparatives. Click on the "comparatives" link. Then click on August 2008 report.

 

how about my old computer being majorly infected, my friend getting infected alot with it.
enough evidence tbh.
my current and last av never failed me.
i do think its getting better but not fast enough.
today for the first time norton scanned an attachment on yahoo webmail and blocked it. i was annoyed i wanted to test the malware in a virtual machine. i knew it was malware anyway.

 

yeah, what he said.

 

So we are to believe you instead of AV-Comparatives? I don't think so. I'll put my trust in AV-Comparatives.

By you including Clinton and Gates in the same sentence with The Pope and God, totally destroyed any credibility you had.

 

I thought you loved the new NIS. No wait, it's KAV. No wait...............

 

Stefan, bought me a Big Mac and fries.

 

ok so this will last until your next meal.

 

No AV is going to catch everything. NOD32 will tell you that. Kaspersky will tell you that.

No AV is perfect for everyone.

However, Symantec is consistently in the top tier in the majority of tests out there. And that's with having 2/3'rds of the market (making them a prime target for malware writers trying to circumvent security). Their problem wasn't detection, but performance and its messy installation / uninstallation.

Does that make it perfect? Absolutely not.

However, saying that it has crappy detection rates goes against the evidence from reputable testing groups.

 

The uninstallation problems was exactly the reason why I was hesitant to even trial Norton because being able to cleanly uninstall a product is key to trialling it. Apparently, Symantec has fixed this in their 2009 products and this has intrigued me enough to seriously consider trialing their product. FWIW, this says a lot since I am a diehard KAV user.

 

I have played around and tried different methods of uninstalling NIS. The normal way which leaves the usual behind that any product does. I used Revo in advanced mode which was good. Then I used the Norton Removal tool and that was the best. Takes only minutes.

 

no giant drink?

 

Maybe if you get a lot of old samples you can detect 99% if you use Symantec... You can detect 99% with UNA, Abacre and maybe with other poor AVs.
I don't know WHERE the people get samples to test... Maybe they request it to Symantec...

Maybe most of you don't like virus.gr tests but they are the tests that have more in common with my tests.

Of course I don't have 1000 or 1000000 samples here but if I receive 5 samples per day and Symantec detect 1/5 I dont need a lot of samples to define it as "poor detection".

It's convenient for you to don't trust in virus.gr and ignore VirusTotal/JOtti/virsca.org results...

It's convenient because if you don't ignore it you can't trust in Symantec.

I'll not discuss it... You use Symantec and are happy using it... Good luck!

If a Brazilian uses Symantec (and I don't believe that it's different world-widely because we receive - and I get - international malware) he'll be infected in hours if run or open one of a lot of malware that we receive daily.

If a Brazilian uses Avira, F-Secure, Kaspersky... probably he'll not be infected because Kaspersky, F-Secure and Avira detect, yes, about 99%.

Any community about viruses here will say the same things I'm saying here... Happily we are not blind about tests.

So use you Symantec in your computer and, with luck, be happy.

 

Ok first thing's first.

If your going to bash a product at least get your damn facts strait.

As for the samples the oldest sample of the 1.6 million samples that AV Corp and AV Test have is Sep of 2005 all the way up to current day the MAJORITY being modern day variants / virus

Norton is tested against the EXACT same test bed as Avira and kaspersky.

In fact in test's its the most well rounded, the new version that came out is just a taste of things to come from them. sorry if you cant handle that.

Please pull your head out of your.... and do some research before you sit here and bash something you seem to think you know. when you obviously are just grabbing at straw's

Sorry but again wrong. most the people that know anything AKA Developers and Security Experts on this forum fully disagree with you. As many so far have praised Norton for the change. read some of the post here before you make such a arrogant remark.

Edit.

Please read the report.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/

 

I tried Norton 2009 and it's detection in the last week... I testes many samples that I had and that I received or found in the last weeks. Symantec have poor detection and that's all. I know Symantec improved resource usage and it's very appreciated but detection is almost the same of previous versions: poor.

Use it, stay with Symantec... For it's only marketing... I testes the software to change my mind but I cant change my mind if I see Symantec have almost the same poor detection of always. At least now it's with less resource usage (probably the lightest AV that I know).

As I'm not here to change minds the topic is closed for me.