Symantec/Norton not very popular here? Why?

Other than cost (not that high, but still something you have to pay every year, every two years or every 3 years - although the positives is you can evaluate and consider better alternatives for another security software periodically), what are the reasons Norton IS isn't that popular in polls here?

There seems to be some Windows 8 issues, but I think most if not every vendor have those currently, and most people aren't using Win8 yet anyway. And every security software has some kind of issues anyway, with older Windowses too.

PC Mag rated Norton IS very high, and it uses independent labs tests in it's evaluation (among it's own ones). Bitdefender and F-Secure prolly have stronger anti virus component than Norton, but Bitdefender is notorious resource hog, and F-Secure has gone for the route of using standard Windows firewall (perhaps with some minor enhancements).

So why isn't Norton a good compromise? To me it seems their firewall is stronger than Comodo or ZA, and their virus component is stronger than Avast/Avira/AVG. There are also many kinds of compatibility issues using different vendors' AV and FW together, like: Comodo with AVG is a no go, and Comodo with Avast has more or less unsolved issue with Avast's Web Shield.

Finding out those compatibility issues _uncontestably_ takes time, and time is money to most.

 

and this is based on? Personal experience? That is? Just curious...

 

Imo WSF members do like to tinker with security programs, don't mind spending some time resolving a compatibility issue and especially demand the freedom to have their security setup respond as they wish and/or don't want to rely on a 'one-layer' security setup
NIS is aimed at the large crowd that likely does not want to tinker with their security program, who do mind spending time on 'issues' and probably appreciate a message like 'This piece of software hasn't been seen before, it might be malware.' and/or rather avoid having to learn multiple security programs.
Mind you, I don't have anything against Symantec or NAV/NIS. After the complete rewrite in 2009-2010 versions, I found NIS to be light and effective. (versions in the years before were monstrous in resource usage/system responsiveness).
But only useful for f.i. my parents, not for me because not suitable for a multi-layered setup (besides other gripes).

 

maybe because ppl here is more tech savy and more intelligent/logical than general mass?
I have to rate the marketing department in symantec to be #1 in all av vendors.

Please read this eye-opening article for your own judgement:

All mouth, No trouser

 

Partly (from using Comodo - way too many popups, and lots of difficulties to get some proggies to work with it a few years ago, that needed some open ports, like a one play money poker program).

I read a bunch of reviews on those firewalls, and it left me the feeling Nortons firewall was the strongest of them. Can't remember what article it was that had quite average results with Comodo - should go trough them again some day.

But I glanced quickly those PC Mag articles, and their opinnion on Comodo and ZA was, that they left too much decision to user, with popups, and especially so Comodo that had very small database for trusted/recognized programs.

 

Norton has its fans and detractors, like most other AVs here.

 

A lot of people hate Norton based on their personal use of older versions which slowed down their PC's. I hated all the old Norton products because they had a way of "taking over" some control over your PC.

I started using the newer version of NIS ( I think it was NIS 2010) and used it for 2 years convinced it was the best and the lightest. I stopped using it sometime last year after watching two separate independent tests of NIS 2012 on Youtube where a downloaded rootkit (zeroaccess) was able to totally disable NIS and could not be removed by any NIS product.

I switched to Kaspersky because it is very good at protecting itself and have been pleased with it.(Best Buy was having a 50% off sale on KIS at that time. For many months after the full introduction of NIS 2012 the Norton forum was full of users complaining about how zeroaccess had infected their machine. There is some malware wizard type on the forums over there that had to give individual removal instructions to NIS zeroaccess victims that had to be tailored specifically to the victims PC and configuration. These zeroaccess complaints have not appeared much recently.

 

i dont think so regarding this thread with tons of useless combinations and "mine is bigger" comparisons...
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=111264

Norton is just another fish in pool with some malware sharks... wether it was blown before or weak after.

BTW nice merchandising article from Kaspersky

 

Very informative.

It does show that Symantec has definitely retreated on having its retail products fully tested at established AV test labs in 2012. That in itself would leave the suspicion that they were trying to hide something?

 

~ Removed Off Topic Comments ~

Back to topic for a while. I too used Symantec/Norton for a while, years ago, and it was very harsh on resources that time, and I was very unpleased with it. (Switched over to Comodo and NOD32 then, I think)

 

Rebates make it free or cheap and Amazon pricing seems to be consistently low so probably not an issue of cost. I will happily pay for a decent suite.

From MY experience (may not equal anyone else's) I find NIS has less Windows 8 issues than most products.

The known resource hogs are doing a better job with resources lately while still having better protection than some of the lighter solutions. It makes it difficult to not choose the Bitdefender/F-Secure/Kaspersky solutions over something "lighter".

Unfortunately Norton is a compromise. That said, I do own a license and dare to say it would be my suite of choice, IF they would make the changes I want. Things like better 64 bit support and letting ME choose what to do with a file that is detected are 2 of MY major complaints.

 

I don't care what type of articles it is, it IS very informative and talked with facts/data, not just mouth. ppl will make their own judgement whether it's pure bs marketing gimmicks or not.

Edit: read the thread you mentioned. based on that thread, I tends to agree, I was wrong. It does not appears that many ppl here is more tech savy or more logical/intelligent.

 

What are pros and cons of those products, in your opinnion?

I don't mind too much if the AV decides to sandbox or delete a file it thinks is affected. But what was that 64-bit issue you found?

I bought a 3 machine 1 year license of Norton 360 (has some extra utilities and 2 GiB cloud storage, on top of NIS). But I'm ready to reconsider any time my security solutions.

 

Maybe not now, but after the file has been deleted if bad things start to happen, or the file was very important to you and there's no way of getting it back since it was deleted. Then you might think it's a bad idea deleting stuff right away

Putting files in the quarantine is always the best option, since from there you are able to restore the file, or delete it of course.

 

Pros? Better than average protection. Cons? A reputation (somewhat deserved, especially in the past) for being "heavy". Heavy has nothing to do with amount of RAM used. By heavy I mean general slow down of the machine. Resource usage is something I have noticed most vendors have improved over the last couple of years. That and as machines get more powerful with time it makes less of an impact.

The problem with Norton is that it does not necessarily quarantine a deleted file. It just says it detected a threat, and the file is gone with no trace. I have had it delete files from PSPad and WinRAR for example. I would care less if it were always right, but there is NO AV that can pull that off.

As for 64 bit support, they support NO 64 bit browsers (many have supported 64 bit IE for years) and there is no plugin support for 64 bit Outlook, which most other vendors have supported since 2010.

Also see this post about the lack of 64 bit support in general:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2188352&postcount=1

I post all of this as information, not to convince anyone to use any particular product over another.

 

With all due respect, your posting shows how much typical user you are, not advanced user like most WSF members.

First, you did not have problems with Norton, but you watched a YouTube video and this made you change the product ? What the ?!

Second, you switched to vendor B because it is very good at protecting itself ? I don't know why you and some people care so much about this self-protection features of AVs. This is useless and has caused more OS problems than has proved more efficency. The antivirus's most important feature is to protect the machine and user's data, not to defend itself by means of hooks and other unauthorized way. It does not matter if the product will be untouched if the data is compromized. The AV better suicide itself but save the data.

 

With respect.
What happens if you see 2 youtube tests which demonstrate kaspersky failing miserably?
Do you ditch that and use something else.?
You will find yourself in a vicious circle where every product will fail at some point.

 

Where is your logic?
If your av software is disabled by a virus, then the virus can do whatever it wants. And you call this "sacrifice the av to save the data?" You think the virus will commit suicide after it disables your antivirus? No the virus will go ahead and destroy your data most likely.

 

The same is valid (a lot more valid) that if the malware is not detected in the first place, it can do whatever they want no matter the antivirus software's self-protection. Malware's main target is the user's data and the machine, not the antivirus software.

Quite the contrary, the malware will do whatever it is made for no matter the AV/security if not blocked or detected at the appropriate time.

 

I have used Norton and liked it. It ran well on my systems without trouble or conflicts with my other applications, MBAM Pro, SAS Pro, and Win Patrol.

I switched because it is not being tested by AV Comparatives. I will not argue about that except to say AV-C is the test org in which I have the most confidence.

As far as price, it is one of the least expensive at places other than their site. I bought most of mine, and in fact all my AVs, on ebay without any problems for over 10 years.

I would not hesitate to return to Norton if it were tested and showed as one of the top AVs by AV-C.

Count me as one who does not like to try to fix AVs that don't work well for me. I just dump such and go to one that works without trouble.

Regards,
Jerry

 

Except; there are certain actions that are more suspicious than certain other actions for behaviour blockers. If an undetected malware does manage to execute and not disable the AV, in the course of it's action the AV is more likely to report something based on the multiple weird actions the malware would be doing. So, I think self protection = more protection.

Also; the undetected malware that does manage to easily bypass the protection of the AV processes can also (in theory) cause a deadlock, loop, memory exception or some such thing that can potentially crash the system - this can happen even if there is no self protection; but then the Antimalware process would not be involved - so one less factor.

Self protection also applies to e.g. the firewall and other components as well....However, I'm not sure if youtube tests are a particularly good way to test/check the self protection. Personally, I don't put a lot of stock into those kinds of tests.

Anyway, just my thoughts - I personally think self protection has some importance still, though "hacks" into the OS may (and often do) cause instability.

As for Norton, well, I have always preferred PC Tools over it - with PC Tools expiring, I may pick up the offer for the NIS license; but I don't really like NIS as much as I like PC Tools (not talking about protection here). In any case I guess NIS is still a decent product - however, I think there are other (better) alternatives.

 

I could not agree less. Most suites have multiple detection mechanisms so even if it missed the malicious payload at first, it may still catch it as it proceeds to do other things. If the first thing it does is kill all AV processes, then it has free reign to do whatever it wants to any and all files on your system. I have been in that situation, and there is nothing more disturbing than seeing your AV close and then see new things popup on your screen. Kaspersky, Outpost, and Dr. Web are all products that are excellent at self protection and it is a worthwhile feature that has never caused me any problems that I can trace back to it.

 

When I first joined this forum I was surprised to notice that discussions on Norton was almost absent & most people followed what AV-C published. Of course I was not entirely correct in my assumptions. As a regular reader of this forum posts I decided to install KIS in my own laptop & NIS in my daughter's laptop. So far both machines are running fine. In our part of the world, that is Calcutta & its suburbs most people swear by Norton. Surely they like it for some reason. Now that Norton is in limelight after being honoured/mistreated by AV-C I expect to learn more about its pros & cons from WSF members.

 

It amazes me how many ppl on a forum like this think this is ok?
For God's sake, see the MBAM debacle from just this very week!"!

My 2c worth.

I loved Kaspersky.
Until the awful bugs.
And authoritarian non-support (and that includes the so-called unoffical support forum which is especially unhelpful)
Until they took away my choice to choose what I wanted when installing.
Until they regionally encoded (huge mistake IMO)
And if upgrade rights go, well then I rest myt case (ther greedy bastards)

I used Norton PFW (and my beloved atguartd FW which turned into NPFW)for a while a long time ago and love it back then, till most of the decision making was taken away from me.


I see a move to absolutley no option on install from the 'big vendors, Kaspersky has totally lostmy custom and Norton would not be entertained at all due to auto delete policy.

I would urge a layered approach to everyone's security - don't let these big paid for boys cage you in their, erm cage of £E$