Does anyone know how timely Norton Safe Web is?
This page here Norton Safe Web, from Symantec
You simply enter the site in question into the search box and click enter.
It has a review of whether or not a site is safe and what potential trouble might be lurking, but it doesn't tell you anything about when they checked it or how often they check them.
Tja..... i do not want to kick in open doors again, especially not on a Windows
forum but that safety is only met by surfing with one of the Linux OS, so far that is. Whether that's due to the little use of Linux OS and therefore not being 'worthwhile' to develop viruses for it or whether it's due to Linux not using this registry system of Microsoft is a moot point. I cannot say anything sensible about that, except that the fact exists.
I have NIS 2012 and i dont have any problem (not as NIS 2011)
Hard to say, I wouldnt say infected sites is any higher than say 3 years ago, just that there has been more publicity.
The only time I have come across a site that can infect machines without user interaction is either.
1 - bad configuration which has lowered security settings
2 - old browser that has poor default settings.
3 - infected ad servers.
even then without user interaction on a modern operating system will typically not be a root compromise.
I would say what I posted about been vigilant is better than installing an anti virus and then thinking you immune so can be careless. The amount of systems I have cleaned all had virus protection on them.
The average detection rate for 0day malware across all security software is under 20%.
Because I'm simple I will keep it simple. MSE, MAM, SAS. If you use torrents and/or go to certain web sites there is no way anything will protect you. That's SIMPLE.
Actually most of the postings here are pretty useless. What is the added value
of posting/reading what AV programs are used? I can do nothing with a posting saying "I use A, B, and C" and nothing else. It is much more important how the security is maintained, checked, used and how you behave online. Comparing AV programs is senseless if conditions under which they are used are not standardized and/or described.
With all due respect ... you are obviously one with considerable experience and knowledge when it comes to computer security and safe surfing. For that I congratulate you. Many people who visit this Forum are not as well versed as you. They post a question along the lines of, "What security setup do you have?", or "What's the best antivirus?", and then they (hopefully) read through the responses.
If Product "XYZ" is recommended by a majority of the people then perhaps that will be the starting point for the asker. He will try it out under his actual computing environment to see if it meets his needs and expectations. If it doesn't, he may then try the second most recommended product. And so on and so forth.
Most of the postings here are not pretty useless. They serve as the groundwork to become a better informed and wiser computer user. Such as yourself. Because with all of your wisdom I'm pretty sure you started out as an inexperienced novice, too. IMHO.
Marsmimar, there is almost no ground work done here. The basis is given by tw33k and thatagat in the first two postings on "What's the best AV-virus?".
And i repeat that a posting only stating "I use A, B, C" or "I only use D" has no added value whatsoever. At most you can make a table of what people (who answer with a posting, mind you) use mostly but that doesn't say anything at all. Period, no matter how you twist and turn it around.
This is especially true if no conditions are described. One person may have no
AV at all (just a firewall) but is only reading BBC News or the Guardian online,
while another one maybe surfing around from one dubious site to the next one
(without saying so) and then complains that AV program B did not prevent that a virus was installed on his computer, saying "forget about B, it is useless"
although it does have some added value maybe; just maybe.
Quote