Symantec seeking beta testers for NAV/NIS 2007

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by RejZoR, May 21, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    LINK:
    https://et.symantec.com/signup/

    Symantec is seeking beta testers for their 2007 product line.
    This includes Norton AntiVirus 2007, Norton Internet Security 2007 and Norton Save & Restore.

    Beta testing is open and available to anyone. Just make sure you read the requirements, duties and bonuses :)
    Looks like it'll be a busy summer after all ;)
     
  2. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    nice one.... Hope they'll have really something new: heuristics, less memory usage, etc :D
     
  3. comma dor dash

    comma dor dash Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Posts:
    146
    How much do they pay? ;-)
     
  4. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,042
    Hmm. I'd be tempted to sign up just to see if they respond to those emails.:D
     
  5. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    I signed up for it but they really want to know everything about you and your computer and software. But I hesitated on the what color is your underwear question :eek: just kidding
     
  6. controler

    controler Guest

    The stealth color would be brown of course LOL:eek:

    If Symantec still operates as they used to years ago, they collect your persoanl data so when the beta is done, they will send you a boxed copy of the finished product. They got my info way back when I tested for Quarterdeck ( Clean Sweep)

    controler
     
  7. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    that's nice to get a mail from them. :D I can't wait their yellow box.(if we're talking about colors. :p )
     
  8. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,042
    I suspect they wouldn't like the fact I use Outpost, and KAV:D
     
  9. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    btw, any relase date....does anyone know? :D
     
  10. tobacco

    tobacco Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,497
    Location:
    British Columbia
  11. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    That is a good question!
     
  12. Chubb

    Chubb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,967
    Just gut feeling. I would really doubt if any "new" features in the 2007 product line are really new and unique. Comparing with the 2005 product line, I don't think there are that much new features in the 2006 product line. Most the the features are "Improved" only, rather than brand new or unique.

    Hope the 2007 products do really gives some brand new and unique features.
     
  13. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    tobacco,

    By any objective measure, detection characteristics of Symantec/Norton are just fine. Any reasonable google search will uncover equivalent behavior by each and every AV out there, including KAV. While it would be nice if every AV implemented detections within a couple hours of any malware appearing out there, that's an unlikely eventuality.

    Blue
     
  14. tobacco

    tobacco Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,497
    Location:
    British Columbia
    Hey BlueZannetti

    This was just an example.They way it is generally looked at is "average response time" i think.And from what i've seen, Symantec is on average 6-8 hours longer in updating definitions than some of the others e.g. KAV.Which means a much longer window for possible infection.Now IMHO, this is unacceptable because if other products can update in say the 1-6 hour average, why can't Symantec?.While "Heuristics" help in protection, the main strength of todays AV's is still the definition database is it not?.
     
  15. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    I think the main reason for such delay for Symantec is the number of products they have to cover. Just compare number of Kaspersky products (~10) compared to Symantec's what 30 products? I'm sure they have to test signatures in all of them before release. Donno for other possible factors.
     
  16. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    yeah, but I think they have different employees for each of their product, isn't it? ;)
     
  17. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Of course, but seems that Symantec should improve the quality of its employees...
     
  18. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    I have no idea whether this is true or not. I've not seen actual data to support this type of quantitative claim.
    I think is it nothing more than hyperbole to claim that response timescales of the same order as the likely signature update periods for many typical users (not necessarily the folks here) are a major issue.
    It is, but being quick out of the gate must be viewed relative to some germane timescale, for example with respect to threat proliferation timescales, not to mention intrinsic damage potential. Those factors, and a host more, determine whether this type of shortfall is operationally important.

    If most rapid update is a critical personal trait while shopping for an AV, I'd agree that Norton/Symantec is probably not the solution I'd embrace. However, for overall detection performance, it remains a very useful product.

    Blue
     
  19. tobacco

    tobacco Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,497
    Location:
    British Columbia
    BlueZannetti

    I'm not disputing it's detection rates.As evidenced by recent tests, it's in the top 5.But the main detection is supplied by the definition database and it's updating of signatures.Correct.And if you take 2 AV's with identical detection rates lets call them AV-A and AV-B and A database's response time is 4 hours and B database is 10 hours, wouldn't you say that "B" stands a much greater chance of infection?.
     
  20. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    Greater? Yes. Much greater? No.

    The fastest modes of malware propogation involve unsolicited inbound exploitation of vulnerable running OS services. This mode is most effectively dealt with using a firewall/router and maintaining a fully patched OS. Email propogation is now suppressed in many, though certainly not all, cases by mail filtering at the ISP level even if a user does not follow good practices in dealing with email attachments (using text only preview/viewing, not opening/running unsolicited attachments, etc.). Most other propagation vectors that I can think of at the moment are relatively slow. Time is obviously a germane factor at some level, the question is whether a time slice of a couple of hours matters to the majority of users?

    There is no question that hundreds of new variants of malware appear daily. However, how frequently are you alerted that an infectious load has attempted to land on your PC? If it is multiple times per week, I'd agree that going with a solution that provides extremely rapid update is likely prudent in your case. However, I do not see this as a typical scenario. Based on my own experience, a more typical scenario would be seeing these alerts a handful of times per year. The simple fact is that most users will not be frequenting sites likely to have been compromised or serve as attack points for web-based or application-based malware. In these circumstances I maintain that the update speed differential of a few hours is immaterial.

    I am not saying immediate update of signature databases is not a desireable state. However, stating that differential update speeds on the order of a few hours places a user squarely in harms way is overly alarmist based on current conditions.

    Blue
     
  21. tobacco

    tobacco Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,497
    Location:
    British Columbia
    BlueZannetti

    While i feel i am certainly not a "newbie", i will admit your knowledge in this field is far superior to mine.Now having said that, this is what i see in many different security forums which has led to my conclusions whether you agree with them or not.Norton users posting their problems in security forums are not saying " my computer has been acting weird so i did an online KAV scan and it said i had this virus and these trojans.Why didn't Norton alert me to this".

    This is what i constantly see - "Got a nasty little bug, not quite sure how. I got a dialog box from symantec saying that virus had been detected, a trojan. It also said that the quarantine and clean had both failed, as access was denied.

    Explorer Crashed, and when I tried to rerun it through the task manager, it just gives me the dreaded "Windows Explorer needs to be shut down" message. A restart yielded no results.

    I can't really get much of anything done. Any advice here?".

    This example and similiar i see alot.Norton has 'detected it' but it's too late and has rooted itself and is causing major problems instead of 'preventing this happening in the first place'.And since to not only detect this but prevent this relies on a signature, quicker response times in updating databases would 'prevent' alot of these infections if Norton's 'detection rates' are as good as they're supposed to be wouldn't it?.
     
  22. Howard Kaikow

    Howard Kaikow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Posts:
    2,802
    I would not do any testing without compensation, not to mention signing the beta test agreements as usually worded.
     
  23. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    tobacco,

    You're implicitly assuming that the users know how to configure, use, and verify that Norton is running as it should. My own experience with many casual users is that this is a faulty assumption.

    Aside from basic issue of configuration, the Norton update module was prone to failure and this problem was simply not recognized by many users. In older versions of Norton, the Live Update module was a clear Achilles Heel and was prone to rather frequent problems. I have heard that this subsystem has received some attention of late, but whether the problems have been fully resolved I have no idea since I converted to my systems to either NOD32 or KAV WS a number of years ago and am no longer a Norton user on my personal PC's. However, it is still a very viable package for a wide range of user types. On my work laptop, I have had Symantec corporate in use for a number of years with absolutely no problems the entire time.

    I don't dispute that many folks have problems and use Norton. I personally feel that many of these problems would occur regardless of the AV package employed. It is part of the learning process for many. Assuming that a security package will work perfectly once installed is probably a bad idea, yet it seems to be fairly commonplace assumption with new users.

    As for response times among the various AV's, faster is clearly desired over slower. However, desired does not necessarily mean critically important, and that is the distinction I am trying to make.

    Blue
     
  24. zcv

    zcv Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Posts:
    355
    Hi Blue,

    Just got rid of NAV2005 on my 2nd XP installation, replaced with KAV 6.0 - have NOD on the other. All the years that I've run a NAV version, never had malware a probelm, only with, you guessed it, LU.

    The other specific isuue was that half backed firewall, the worm blocker. Even thougth I disabled it, the procceses for it still ran.

    Since 2002, which I think is the last fairly clean NAV version, the issue has been not that NAV isn't as good as anything else, but HOW it does its job. It is just clunky, Rube Goldberg come to mind :D

    Regards - Charles
     
  25. zcv

    zcv Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Posts:
    355
    One other issue with Symantec and this AV: number of registry entries.

    Most dicussions about the load on system resouces revolve around the nunber of processes that an app runs. That's half the story. The other half is the number of reg entries an app creates. The more reg entries, the bigger Windows footprint that loads because windows keeps the registry in memory. When I uninstalled NAV2005, I took out 4 to 5 k reg entries, which in turn gained 18 MB's of memory on startup - this is with KAV installed.

    Regards - Charles
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2006
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.