Norton Internet Security 2011

[Digerati]

Computer manufacturers & Microsoft...

Huh? That makes no sense at all to me. It sounds like something Microsoft bashers would use. I am sorry, but it appears you are not following this conversation. PC makers don't profit from malware. And as I noted before, Microsoft has NO incentive to let malware proliferate. Why? Because Microsoft bashers and the biased IT press already blame Microsoft for the security mess we are in even though it is the badguys, not Microsoft, that put us here. Microsoft does not sell security programs so again, they don't profit from it. In fact, the security situation, again fueled by bashers, have led many users to flock to Linux, Firefox and other alternatives to Microsoft products.

And the very fact Windows 7 is more secure is an indication Microsoft does take security seriously. Also, the improved security of IE8 and now IE9 - plus the improved Windows Firewall, and the free Microsoft Security Essentials all demonstrate Microsoft's anti-malware efforts.

Just as it is no longer appropriate to blame the current version of NIS for the sins of previous versions, we cannot blame Microsoft, or PC makers for the security situation badguys put us in.

 

[CarlTR6]

Computer manufacturers & Microsoft...

Huh? That makes no sense at all to me. It sounds like something Microsoft bashers would use. I am sorry, but it appears you are not following this conversation. PC makers don't profit from malware. And as I noted before, Microsoft has NO incentive to let malware proliferate. Why? Because Microsoft bashers and the biased IT press already blame Microsoft for the security mess we are in even though it is the badguys, not Microsoft, that put us here. Microsoft does not sell security programs so again, they don't profit from it. In fact, the security situation, again fueled by bashers, have led many users to flock to Linux, Firefox and other alternatives to Microsoft products.

And the very fact Windows 7 is more secure is an indication Microsoft does take security seriously. Also, the improved security of IE8 and now IE9 - plus the improved Windows Firewall, and the free Microsoft Security Essentials all demonstrate Microsoft's anti-malware efforts.

Just as it is no longer appropriate to blame the current version of NIS for the sins of previous versions, we cannot blame Microsoft, or PC makers for the security situation badguys put us in.

Very well stated, Bill.

 

[madtownidiot]

I'm not bashing microsoft. It's not bashing something to make a statement based in facts. I thoroughly enjoy using microsoft products, and I have spent about $18000 on windows 7 30-packs so far this year to upgrade used but relatively new computers to windows 7 for resale, and for installation in computers I've built myself, but some of microsoft's business practices are less than honorable to say the least.. and my experience with people in general is they don't change. They may apologize for wrongdoing when they get caught and even stop for a while, but when somebody gets away with something more than once.. they're going to find another way to do it again after they get caught.
Microsoft, computer manufacturers, and internet security software companies have plenty of incentive to allow malware to proliferate.. for Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, and computer manufacturers.. every new, more inherently secure computer means a new windows license and a new subscription to the security software that is almost always manditorily preloaded.. for companies like Symantec.. it's also matter of survival, if they ever created a product that didn't allow new, unrecognized malicious software to enter the system, nobody would ever need to buy their newest version.
Now if you want to stick your head in the mud and ignore reality that is your choice, but the facts remain

 

[Digerati]

It's not bashing something to make a statement based in facts.

Okay, What are the facts then? You have stated none that are applicable or valid.

for Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, and computer manufacturers.. every new, more inherently secure computer means a new windows license and a new subscription to the security software that is almost always manditorily preloaded..

No! That is simply wrong - totally invalid! New windows license? What does that have to do with security? You are just bashing! The fact a new computer needs a new Windows license has absolutely nothing to do with security, malware, or subscriptions to security software. And neither does Microsoft's past lousy (I agree with your there) business practices. I am sorry, but you are simply bashing Microsoft for bashing's sake. You are making connections where no connections are warranted. As a clear example of your biases, the fully capable MSE is totally free.

My head is not buried in the sand. I'm standing tall and my eyes are wide open and looking around at today's security environment.

Don't get me wrong - I have and will bash Microsoft again - when due! Their strong armed marketing practices of the past are something I, as long time builder and supplier of custom built PCs, have complained about plenty, on forums like this, and to Microsoft. But Microsoft has made a turnaround in terms of their stance on security since unjustly enduring over 10 years of bashing for XP. And I say unjust because it was. XP was designed to support insecure, legacy, DOS era hardware and software because users (mostly corporate) insisted it should as they did not want to have to pay to retool again, as they did with Win95. Microsoft started this turnaround with XP SP3. Then the purchase of Giant Antispyware (renamed to Windows Defender), which they then gave away free. Then IE7, 8, and now 9, continue to increase security. Windows Firewall is an excellent firewall, and free. And again MSE has continued to garner excellent test results and is free too.

Once again, Microsoft does not sell anti-malware software. They see no benefit when a computer gets infected. You are 100% right about Symantec and McAfee, but you cannot lump Microsoft with them. They are totally different entities.

 

[Maxxwire]

It's 2010 and the 2011 version of Norton is released...

Uses about 10MB on my machine. Doesn't seem bloated to me.

Please don't be offended, but as a former Norton user I'd really enjoy seeing a screenshot
of Task Manager showing all the instances of NIS 2011 totaling 10 MB RAM.

~Maxx~
.

 

[madtownidiot]

It's 2010 and the 2011 version of Norton is released...

Uses about 10MB on my machine. Doesn't seem bloated to me.

Please don't be offended, but as a former Norton user I'd really enjoy seeing a screenshot
of Task Manager showing all the instances of NIS 2011 totaling 10 MB RAM.

~Maxx~
.

just for comparison purposes...
Here's a screenshot of CIS 5.0 immediately after startup
View attachment 105516
and one after the initial scan for updates is complete
View attachment 105517
on a dell xt-2 with 2GB RAM running 7 ultimate..other systems might use more or less memory

 

[Maxxwire]

Since I run my browser in the virtual space of Sandboxie which acts like a Malware jail I just have the Comodo Firewall and Defense+ installed which as you can see requires only 5.2 MB of RAM instead of the 8.94 MB of RAM the full CIS Suite runs for on your computer.

Before Sandboxie put the Comodo AV out of business on my computer by trapping Malware before affect the computer I ran the whole CIS Suite and I am quite familiar with the huge amount of system resources that are required to do an AV definitions update.

~Maxx~
.

 

[madtownidiot]

very interesting idea.. I tried it using the comodo sandbox and it works.. even lets me upload pics..
View attachment 105573View attachment 105574

 

[yowanvista]

very interesting idea.. I tried it using the comodo sandbox and it works.. even lets me upload pics..
View attachment 105573View attachment 105574

Seems comodo is doing a good job too

 

[madtownidiot]

been trying to find some malware sites.. to test that too

 

[Maxxwire]

very interesting idea.. I tried it using the comodo sandbox and it works.. even lets me upload pics..
View attachment 105573View attachment 105574

The main difference between the Comodo Sandbox and Sandboxie is that Sandboxie lets you program in special file paths for things like new bookmarks and passwords so that when the browser comes out of the Sandbox it retains that information in its app data files.

I tried using my browser in the Comodo Sandbox and it operates just fine, but when the browser comes out of the Comodo Sandbox its app data files are exactly the same as when it went into the Comodo Sandbox.

~Maxx~
.

 

[malexous]

It's 2010 and the 2011 version of Norton is released...

Uses about 10MB on my machine. Doesn't seem bloated to me.

Please don't be offended, but as a former Norton user I'd really enjoy seeing a screenshot
of Task Manager showing all the instances of NIS 2011 totaling 10 MB RAM.

~Maxx~
.

This was taken on September 10 after surfing in Firefox with 11 tabs open and downloading large files for half an hour.

8.4MB

Edit: Anyway, unless you have less than 1GB RAM, it isn't going to make much of a difference on the computer performance. Half an hour isn't long enough for a proper measure but if you look at the CPU Time, I/O Reads and I/O Writes, you can get a sense of the low numbers I see when I measure them for longer.

 

[madtownidiot]

I tried using my browser in the Comodo Sandbox and it operates just fine, but when the browser comes out of the Comodo Sandbox its app data files are exactly the same as when it went into the Comodo Sandbox.

~Maxx~
.

That's exactly what I want to happen.. a perfect way to stop a browser from slowing down over time

 

[Maxxwire]

That's exactly what I want to happen..

Its also a very safe way to surf the Internet although you are prevented from downloading programs or anything else to the computer while the browser is in the Comodo Sandbox where as Sandboxie allows user authorized downloads. My preference is to scan programs with Virus Total before downloading them from the virtual space of Sandboxie into the 'real' computer.

~Maxx~
.

 

[madtownidiot]

That's exactly what I want to happen..

Its also a very safe way to surf the Internet although you are prevented from downloading programs or anything else to the computer while the browser is in the Comodo Sandbox where as Sandboxie allows user authorized downloads. My preference is to scan programs with Virus Total before downloading them from the virtual space of Sandboxie into the 'real' computer.

~Maxx~
.

What I have done is set firefox to be automatically sandboxed as limited, and anytime I want to download something, I just open up IE and download it from there

 

[Maxxwire]

[What I have done is set firefox to be automatically sandboxed as limited, and anytime I want to download something, I just open up IE and download it from there

You are not leaving your AV with a whole lot to do in fact if your computer is by itself and not on a LAN your AV won't have a thing to do as long as you use Virus Total or an on demand scanner to check everything you download from the Internet.

~Maxx~
.

 

[malexous]

I am in fact referring to NIS 2010/2011, which is pretty useless against rogue AVs. source.
I have removed rogue av infections from several computers that had NIS 2010

I fail to see how that shows that Norton is useless against rogue AVs.

Norton 2011 performs much better than 2010 against rogues and their scripts in my (insignificant?) tests.

 

[Maxxwire]

I fail to see how that shows that Norton is useless against rogue AVs.

He is referring to the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge where Norton 2010 only got a 40% score and not recommended status...

Soon we will know how Norton 2011 does in the rigerous 148 security tests that Matousec administers hopefully it will be able to pass more than 59 by then.

~Maxx~
.

 

[malexous]

What part of Matousec tests rogues?

For anyone that hasn't read my post, don't pay attention to Matousec results regarding products like Look 'n' Stop and Mamutu except to realise that they don't contain HIPS. http://www.sevenforums.com/1025206-post40.html

Also, Norton was tested only in 6/10 tests/levels.

 

[Digerati]

I have a problem with this rogue issue too. I mean why would you be installing another AV program if you already have NIS?

I also have a problem with Matousec's testing methodology. They test using a 10 year-old operating system that was designed to support DOS-era hardware. Why not test with Windows 7?

They don't include Windows Firewall or MSE? Why not? If nothing else, they provide a baseline although actually, since migrating my systems to Win7, I use both and see no reason to change that.

Also, they say they don't test "dead" products but they have Sunbelt Personal Firewall listed but as you can plainly see, it does not support Windows 7 and is 32-bit only. That's dead, IMO.

Finally, I never rely on one review. And when recommending security app to my clients, I advise them to review these testing sites:

• ICSA Labs
• WestCoast Labs
• AV-Test