Norton Internet Security 2009

OK. Possible.
Do you have any sources for your statement?


Edit:
OK, so I see you quoted 2 posts from this forum. How ture is that I don't know but I think those 2 posts make sense. However, talking about GENERIC detection was not my intention neither deniz's. Because if you want to argue about the total number of viruses (if you count a variants to be a virus) out there, no one, I mean no one, even the antivirus experts, knows how many out there in the wild. Why? Because one single virus can theoretically have millions of variants. I think if you go all the way to argue about how many variants (viruses in your vocabulary) can be generated in one day, one year, then this discussion will be meaningless, because I can also define "one" virus to be the generic one because I did not say that one variant=1 new virus. I did NOT say or think anything like that.
My original point was, the viruses tested by av-test.org or av-comparatives.org, can not be all new viruses less than 1 year old, and they can not be all variants of some generic viruses. You mentioned that the samples tested have viruses from back in 2005, and we do not know how many were from the year 2008. "http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1320421&postcount=174". So deniz's statement is wrong even only based on your words.
My point was, the newer viruses are potentially more harmful/in the wild and should be able to give us more realistic information if tested against those new viruses.

 

ROFL refresh my last post. there is Loads of information all readily available here. but my last post was edited and it added.

 

Simple. In my dictionary, one variant is not one different virus. Because if you count a variant as a virus, then we could have one million viruses in one day, theoretically. Please see my edited post above yours.

 

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Read the report from 9-15-2008

Go down to Summery 5.

You will see there is 2 test bed's one collects virus from Sep of 2005 to November of 07 the other is All malware in the Last 9 months. read the test is has both results from both sets and what the results are combined together.

the test below that is them together and there is 2 sets of score one with Medium settings then one with all out settings. Norton gets a 99.% in all settings and a 97.9 in normal settings.

Its all there read it.

The post's Quoted are from one of the Avira's Dev's I would say its pretty truthful. otherwise he should not be making detections.

 

OK, I did not read the summary part of the report . Seems both Norton and McAfee made a large improvement. Glad to see Avira is still on the lead.

 

Well since Fajo posted lots of info already, there is no need for me to repeat the same thing.

 

The operative word here is "records". The number of records in a AV database doesn't necessarily match how many viruses in total they can catch. 1 signature may detect 10, 100 or more variants. If those were calculated, the figure would be much more than advertised. Don't forget, generic detections are also included in those records, and these get tweaked as time goes by with other signatures being dropped because of these as in the example given by Stefan for his company. They all do this to a lesser or greater degree.

 

Matt's review is done. Pretty good results.


http://remove-malware.com/

 

From the website:

 

Decent Review for Norton indeed.

 

this is also from the site

Over all, that’s not too bad. The malware left behind could easily be removed with a combination of mbam and sas (or it could be removed manually).
I have to really hand it to Symantec, their products are getting better and better these days!!! …com’on you’ve got to admit it…




he seems to say they are doing a lot better.


how creditable the tests are I don't know as I have never watch his stuff to begin with but some believe its decent.

 

Ok well I added Threatfire into the mix and Threatfire blocked the tests that NIS filed like the HIPS test in System Shutdown Simulator. But then I Revo uninstalled it. Honestly I don't think I need Threatfire but I thought I try it. NIS alone is good enough for me. Just scan once a week with SAS.

 

I agree – but, not because of whether “one variant = one different virus,” but because any organization that collects viruses is imperfect and can capture only a quasi-random selection of all existing viruses through its ‘honey pot’ efforts. Therefore, when anti-virus products are compared using a database of viruses, they are being compared against a sample of the true population of viruses. If the comparisons were repeated using a different sample, the rank order performance among anti-virus products would be similar – but not the same. Thus, minor differences in the performance ranks should be considered to be within “plus-or-minus the statistical error of estimate” and not meaningful, from a practical perspective.

 

Does anyone run NIS 2009 under UAC? The main screen says "UAC ignored" and a bunch of settings are unaivalable. e.e when I try to open options I get an Access Denied error with the message "admin priveleges are required to open protection center settings".

Is this how its supposed to work in Vista under UAC and do I have to disable UAC?

 

http://community.norton.com/norton/board/message?board.id=nis_feedback&thread.id=8040

 

I run NIS2009 with UAC under Windows Vista, and UAC doesn't ask me anything about Norton. If software is created with UAC in mind, then you shouldn't receive any UAC pop-ups. So in other words, something is wrong on your computer if UAC complains about NIS2009.

 

I am running NIS2009 and UAC on Vista home premium and am having no issues at all.

 

I'm running NIS 2009 with UAC disabled, no problems here . Actually I'm always running without UAC no matter what AV or Suite I'm using. I really don't like the UAC feature


Cheers

 

The Norton article talks about a domain, my account is not part of a domain, its a normal Vista non-admin login with UAC on.

You have it backwards (or I misunderstood you). Software which is UAC aware is exactly what will cause UAC popups. e.g. if a file manager is not written to be uac aware it will not let you copy files to protected locations and will fail. A UAC aware app will let you elevate when needed.

Besides, NIS doesn't give me any security warnings, it just won't let me view any settings, and says that its ignoring UAC. This is not a good thing to see in securoty software. I will try to reinstall but it sounds like a serious bug to me.

 

Running fine for me too with UAC enabled - no "serious bug" here!

 

You misunderstood me

Some ways to run software that require admin rights without showing UAC pop-up windows:

- Configure Vista's Task Scheduler to run the software as admin.
- Configure the software to run as a Windows Service which provides admin rights.

There might also be some other ways to do it. It it possible, because there is plenty of Vista compatible software out there that doesn't show UAC pop-ups.

 

To NIS2009 and NAV2009 users: If you have a router and don't care about anti-spam and identity protection, is NAV2009 enough? Have a friend who's interested. The comparison chart from Symantec is too brief imo.

Is the identity protection that good if you know what you are doing? And wouldn't NAV2009 detect keyloggers?

 

I am behind a NAT and love NIS 2009. It does have keylogger protection. See my screen shots in this thread. As far as spam I use web based email (Yahoo) so I never get spam.

 

Thanks Halo.

And the free giveaway today (until midnight):
http://www.frys.com/product/5571550

Edit: URL updated

 

Wow now that's cheap they have to pay me 1c Too bad I'm in Australia

NAV/IS2009 can detect keyloggers although it is not very good at it. I use a behavior blocker along with NIS2009 even though NAB is embedded in NIS2009.