Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Mayahana, Jan 21, 2015.
Krusty? why do you disable MBAM?
Mainly because it was just wasting system resources and not needed. I don't install PUPs and it hasn't done anything else for me the whole time I've used it. Plus my midrange machines with 8GB RAM slow when MBAM is running.
Also, because this thread is about Norton, I'll say to it offers far superior protection than MBAM.
FYI, 22.7.x has been pulled, just like the last 3 or 4 versions.
DON"T want to hijack this thread but you must not use a torrent client? I was a big promoter of Norton here many years ago , before there was 1000 members. but times change I guess.
That's correct, I have no need for one.
Thanks for the info. That's excuse enough for me to uninstall it. Back to my previous product...
Introducing Symantec Data Scanner
188.8.131.52 is now live.
"High-severity bugs in 25 Symantec/Norton products imperils millions"
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Thanks to Symantec Security Team for their help resolving these bugs quickly.http://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2016/06/how-to-compromise-enterprise-endpoint.html
Symantec Releases Security Updates 06/29/2016
Users and administrators are encouraged to review Symantec Security Advisories SYM16-010 and SYM16-011 and apply the necessary updates.
Yes, Kudos to Symantec for a rapid response to vulnerabilities created,in part, by years of critical negligence. Shocking !
"...Even more surprising is the fact that Symantec appears to have used code from open source libraries, but failed to import patches released by those projects over the years.
For example, Ormandy determined that Symantec products were using version 4.1.4 of an open-source unrar package that was released in January 2012. The most current version of that code is 5.3.11. A similar situation was also observed for another library called libmspack.
“Dozens of public vulnerabilities in these libraries affected Symantec, some with public exploits,” Ormandy said. “We sent Symantec some examples, and they verified they had fallen behind on releases.”..
...Unfortunately, “when looking at how even a behemoth of a security product vendor like Symantec [was] is bundling ancient code in their products, clearly hasn’t subjected this code to security reviews and testing, and to top it off [ran] runs this old, unsafe code with SYSTEM/root privileges, it is clear that security vendors don’t hold themselves to very high standards,.....”
Is Nothing Sacred ?
None of this surprises me with Symantec.
Replace Symantec with almost any other vendor to get the same results.
Most likely. Unfortunately.
Yup seems that way of late. But the current product I am running I have no complaints with to be honest.
Yeah, but Symantec seem to be spectacularly good at it.
No dispute from me!
Several years ago my ISP had so many complaints about Norton, the AV they supplied free as part of their service, that they changed it ... to McAfee . McAfee seemed fine to me, but it was too heavy for my old laptop and I installed something else.
Maybe the Mods should retitle this thread "The Symantec/Norton Bashing Thread", as it is mostly what i see here. What is ironic about this is that i have been testing Norton in the VM for a long period of time now, and it has been outstanding in protection. For those of you that do not know, i was formally known as "illumination" over at Malwaretips, the former Malware Hub Moderator.
Nortons protection has greatly improved over the years. I used to be one of those bashing Norton, i can remember at time walking into a clients home to work on their system, and seeing Norton and first thing, advising them to remove it. That is not the case now days. As mentioned above, all Vendors have their skeletons and issues, and none are ever 100%. As for Norton,I have a renewed respect for ability to keep a system clean.
Totally agree with you about Norton. Problem is, when these types of postings get rolling, they are kind of like California wildfires. You just have to let them burn themselves out.
When you have a thread for a product you will have opinions on both sides. I have made many posts in this thread discussing the fact that I have tried to use Norton, but removed it when there were issues. Most of them were honest attempts to like the product. The recent "bashing" started with this exploit, which is a bad one. Overall, is does provide decent protection, and I have held a license for their product since 2009. If this were any other product, you would see the same discussion. All products get their turn at failing for some reason. Today it is Norton. That said I will likely maintain a license for it, as well as a couple of other products.
I agree all products have their good and bad times for sure. The "bashing" i refer to is among the type that seems to be long held for Norton, easily expressed as a long term disdain for the product, which does not cover the product as it is now days as opposed to its early states. I see this often, and usually by users that have not taken the time to even try the product to see if and how it may have changed. I post in threads like this to hopefully open some eyes to the possibility that a product is no longer as it used to be. I never expect any product to be 100%, with this said, i have seen Norton perform a serious turn around in terms of protection and of course lightness compared to back in the day. They have come a long way, and as such, deserve that notice.
I appreciate your insights, LucentWarrior.
He isn't done testing their products. This was posted at 4:30 yesterday EST.
Tavis Ormandy @taviso 21h21 hours ago
Another round of testing, more new Symantec bugs. Another report on the way. #antivirus
I agree. There is the perception that Norton is still what it was in 2004-2008, which was not good. It is definitely a better product today, and worthy of evaluating aside from issues like the recent exploit which I am sure will be addressed quickly.
Separate names with a comma.