Norton Internet Security, Antivirus and 360 Being Retired?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Raza0007, Sep 19, 2014.

  1. 142395

    142395 Guest

    Can you eraborate it more? In my experience, when Norton blocked entire site it immediately redirect the browser and no download of malicious file or any exploit could occur.
    Try Comodo Secure DNS.
    It seems we can use US version of NS2015, but Symantec already published regional restriction so it is possible someday my NS suddenly get banned. I'm still waiting official local version of NS is released, but why the heck they don't publish it yet for Asian-Pacific area?
     
  2. Mortal Raptor

    Mortal Raptor Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Posts:
    1,013
    Strange I also live in Asia (Dubai) and they do offer it
     
  3. 142395

    142395 Guest

    My bad English, but I meant east-Asian countries and counties in Pacific Ocean.
     
  4. Mortal Raptor

    Mortal Raptor Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Posts:
    1,013
    np, did you contact Norton support via the Live Chat and see what they have to say about this?
     
  5. 142395

    142395 Guest

    Not me but some fellows asked, but the answer was 'corporate secret'.:confused:
     
  6. Mortal Raptor

    Mortal Raptor Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Posts:
    1,013
    Norton Toolbar has been updated for compatibility with Firefox 35 even days before its released! Very good job from Symantec unlike other products like Kaspersky who run usually for 2 weeks after the browser has been update with all its addons disabled due to incompatibility, Symantec's team is planning well in advance:

    https://community.norton.com/en/blogs/product-update-announcements/firefox-35-support-norton-toolbar

    PS: I am running Firefox 35 RC3 and yesterday the addon wasn't working, but today it's working after the automatic update :)
     
  7. FleischmannTV

    FleischmannTV Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,094
    Location:
    Germany
    Actually Kaspersky's vital protection components work independent from any extensions, only for the lesser important features (the ones I would rather see eliminated from the product altogether) the extension is needed. Norton on the other hand needs the toolbar for malicious website blocking and needs to inject dozens of .dlls into Firefox for a lot of its components (like vulnerability protection) to work, suffice say to none of it will work with third-party browsers like Cyberfox or Pale Moon for example. Hence Norton is far more fussy in regards to browser compatibility than Kaspersky.
     
  8. Mortal Raptor

    Mortal Raptor Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Posts:
    1,013
    ohh I see, thanks for educating me.. You're the pro dude

    On a side note, Norton Toolbar hasn't ever caught anything bad, not because it doesn't work, because I only visit legit sites and have ABP installed probably
     
  9. Mayahana

    Mayahana Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Posts:
    2,220
    I can push the toolbar to detect stuff. But I agree - Norton is PICKY about browsers.. So I just use Chrome and forget about it. Norton seems to be on the ball since spinning off to a dedicated Symantec Division to focus on security. My Symantec Engineer certification is WIP, I need to pay for a proctored test soon for it. Symantec is the big boy in enterprise deployments, so it's a valued certification.
     
  10. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,225
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Isn't certifications what it's all about in the end :D

    Symantec is not that much of a big boy around here, in fact, all laptop vendors (here) other than Lenovo dumped Norton and went to McAfee (thank God as well, McAfee is at least a product that works as expected even if not optimal).

    On a side note, Symantec's "new" security division was rumoured to be in talks to acquire AVG. We'll see how that pans out.... :D
     
  11. Mortal Raptor

    Mortal Raptor Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Posts:
    1,013
    McAfee, the heaviest AV on the planet! ROFLMAO!
     
  12. Mayahana

    Mayahana Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Posts:
    2,220
    McAfee is bad. Real bad. I wouldn't install that crap on any machine. I agree with you here. McAfee and their trojan like toolbar.. Terrible.

    FYI: Norton business model is moving away from installing on new machines and other crap. From what I hear they want to 'clean up' their image, and distance themselves from those types of practices. Part of having only TWO products in the matrix now is having to do with that. Also having 'deep' discounts (free or almost free) is something they are moving away from. I applaud these new changes.
     
  13. Mortal Raptor

    Mortal Raptor Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Posts:
    1,013
    Ditto, in my books, any AV preinstalled on a system is pure crap. Not a good image. Let McAfee keep that image, I see it installed on almost every new PC that I or a friend buys, first thing to do is uninstall it then run it McAfee Uninstall Tool to get rid of any traces of that junk.

    Now it's acquired by Intel and called Intel Security, Intel chose the heaviest AV to endorse, utter crap
     
  14. Mayahana

    Mayahana Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Posts:
    2,220
    Symantec is getting serious... Picking up Narus gives them some very advanced machine learning systems, along with some top engineers. If I was conspiratorial, I would be a bit alarmed that Narus is known for data collection/deep packet intrusion technologies, and is ingrained into the NSA so tightly, that it's practically a division of the NSA... However I also know that if a company is looking to get into the Gateway-Security field Narus would be the absolute perfect company to purchase. Should we be happy, or worried, or both?

    Symantec said it will gain about 65 engineers and data scientists from Narus. Financial terms weren’t disclosed. Narus is one of the first companies to combine patented machine learning algorithms, automation, and data fusion technologies to provide the incisive intelligence, context, and control network operators need to protect against cyberthreats and ensure information security.
    http://chicago.suntimes.com/business/7/71/285219/boeing-sells-cybersecurity-unit-symantec
     
  15. Mayahana

    Mayahana Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Posts:
    2,220
  16. Frank the Perv

    Frank the Perv Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Posts:
    882
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    I run McAfee and Symantec (and other AVs) on computers in my household. I work at a place where I can get both free (and other AVs too).

    And I think (hope) McAfee is getting better. Once acquired by Intel, it seemed that good things would happen.

    So I always make a mental note of how each is doing in comparative testing and evaluation. And I run and play with both so I'm pretty familiar with both.

    Symantec regularly tests better by pretty much all the test orgs... and Symantec is smoother and more stable. And Symantec has overall greater market share both in personal and in endpoint protection.

    Each person and system are different, but I'm surprised you like McAfee better. Because to me, they are not even close.

    I have a friend who works at McAfee, so I'll always run at least one copy. I'm rooting for them to get better. Hopefully soon.
     
  17. 142395

    142395 Guest

    And here.

    It's interesting, but from Narus' patent their algorithms are mostly deterministic, it means they depends on predefined rules, parameters, and samples for learning. I personally expect more potential in neural network.
     
  18. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,225
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    McAfee was an AV that knew to do proper system cleanup after infection at a time when the "big ones" like Norton and Trend were still taking baby steps to figure out what exactly was to be cleaned. About 10-12 years ago, I knew multiple infections that required separate tools for Norton and Trend, only to be removed properly by VirusScan itself without external tools. McAfee was also perhaps the first (AV) vendor to introduce cloud based whitelisting on a commercial level across their entire product range in one go with Artemis - and yes, nearly everyone else played catch up afterwards.

    McAfee has a reputation for being heavy, but that is about the only longstanding fault with this product. Detection rates have been consistently adequate (at least) across a wide range of tests (and testing organizations) - something Symantec cannot boast of. Not to mention that McAfee isn't a company losing the plot every few years, hiring and then firing people in cyclic manners like Symantec's doing, and not really undergoing severe management shakeups like Symantec has. That has produced a better product - it's consistent in what it does, at least.

    I know, and use, better alternatives to McAfee. But between Symantec and McAfee it's a no-brainer - McAfee wins. Do keep in mind that my opinions are based over several years of experience dealing with these companies and their products.

    I still believe that given the situation with management over at Symantec, a normal consumer ought to stay away from their products for the near future (1-2 years).
     
  19. 142395

    142395 Guest

    It's hard to determine who was the first to employ cloud-based whitelisting because the time they published the implementation is not the time they start to develop it, Symantec spent yeas to establish Insight.
    But at least McAfee is the first to employ url filtering (SiteAdvisor) and it have been one of the best among industry, though also makes some FPs. Also they're first vendor who employed hardware-based security (DeepSAFE) and still only one vendor in big names (I don't count Comodo in big name when the story is about AV).
     
  20. Mortal Raptor

    Mortal Raptor Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Posts:
    1,013
    1) That explains why 90% of the companies I worked at, use McAfee, I always wondered, why the heck would they run the heaviest AV and cripple their systems to a crawl..... I guess your explanation of protection fits in here

    2) I also once asked an IT person, why the heck do you install McAfee when it's the heaviest? his response was because they offer great discounts for corporate licenses where one needs to deploy it on 100s of machines, don't know about how other companies charge, but that was his reasoning.

    3) For me personally though, after trying every AV out there (except for McAfee offcourse), Norton Security was the lightest for me, and the fact that it has a startup manager that has the ability to not only disable startup items, but leave some enabled but at a delayed start is amazing, it's like bundling Process Lasso in the suite. It also has a safe cleanup for junk files that doesn't cripple my machine like CCleaner does

    4) I actually love their new licensing system. I bought 1 license and installed it on 4 diff. computers for me and other family members, so it works out great and easier to manage and no worry about my constant re-installations since I can deactivate a machine online and reinstall on it freely unlike others such as Kaspersky that would just blacklist your key
     
  21. Mortal Raptor

    Mortal Raptor Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Posts:
    1,013
    Does Norton Security have whitelisting? as in it won't scan the same file twice on consequent access?
     
  22. 142395

    142395 Guest

    For corporate user, their configurability and coverage of products can be another reason. They're not dedicated software vendor like Symantec, but also sell hardware solution.
    By default, Norton skips scan for trusted files, of course after it was scanned in the first scan.
     
  23. Nightwalker

    Nightwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Posts:
    1,304
    No offense but your experience with older versions of Norton/Symantec and Trend Micro isnt that relevant, they were rewritten and are very different from legacy versions.

    Symantec and Trend Micro are great in real usage because of their cloud infrastructure, give it a try and they may surprise you.
     
  24. Dark_Hanzo

    Dark_Hanzo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Posts:
    204
    Location:
    CA
  25. Frank the Perv

    Frank the Perv Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Posts:
    882
    Location:
    Virginia, USA

    Pretty strange -- isn't it. Norton/Symantec used to be a punching bag in this forum. Everybody hated Norton.

    Symantec the company... I don't know much about. But the product has evolved in a pretty nice way.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.