Norton Internet Security 2011

Maxxwire · 31 Oct 2010

malexous said:

Maxxwire said:

500% higher than Norton.

I suppose you have proof?

Its not just about the Antivirus its about how the entire security suite tests. In the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge results Norton scored 40% and the best score was Comodo at 100%. Simple math tells us that a 100% score is 2.5 times higher than a 40% score which is a 250% better score. Its not that Comodo is 2.5X better than Norton its just that Norton does not have the State of the Art zero-day security features to be able to test along side Online Armor, Malware Defender, Kaspersky and Comodo in the rigorous 148 part Matousec tests to thwart all of the simulated exploits included in the tests. This is very important because these days hackers know that with the proliferation of Antivirus software a well executed exploit can help them to gain control of more computers because so many computers have little or no defense against exploits as is revealed in the 148 Matousec Test tesults.

It is quite clear that you are very happy with Norton 2011. Unfortunately I had a bad experience and got infected while using Norton 2009 so I can hope that you can understand why I took the most extreme measures I could find to make sure that my computers don't get infected again. So far I haven't been infected since I began using Sandboxie and Comodo and I am glad of that.

We each do what we can to keep our computers free of Malware and I hope that Norton continues to keep your computer free of Malware as it has been up until now. BTW- Do you use your browser in Sandboxie on a regular basis?

~Maxx~
.

Digerati · 31 Oct 2010

Simple math tells us that a 100% score is 5 times higher than a 40% score.

Huh? In what universe is that? In this universe, simple math says that 40 x 2.5 = 100.

codyw · 31 Oct 2010

Get ready for a long post to read...

I have a question about cloud based antivirus! Is it better than the traditional where the traditional keeps everything on the host computer or is it better where everything is in the cloud? The following AV's have failed me while I used them:

Kaspersky AV and IS
McAfee IS

I have "looked at" Norton IS 2009 because it came with my Win7 laptop but I upgraded to the 2010 because I already had a license and because "usually" when you upgrade to the next version it has better protection and enhancements to protect you. I have watched all videos on Norton 2010 and 2011 where users have thrown threats at them. The FINAL version of NIS 2011 passed with nothing getting past. Norton 2010 passed in "some" videos while others it let one rogue AV in and I forget what else. The fact is, the AV's that burned me making me wipe and start over I will never go to again.

With Kaspersky, there were infections throughout my laptop and backup drive that Norton caught when I started using it. I was floored to see so much malware!
With McAfee, there were 2 hidden Trojans on my computer that in every scan I ran with it, never found. Norton picked them up with no problem as well. So, not only was my backup drive completely infected but so was my computer itself. Not only did I get them cleaned up with Norton but I also had to reformat my backup drive, and wipe my Win7 machine. It was a mess!!! The average user nowadays shouldn't have to worry whether their security software is going to fail them within a day's time. I agree with Maxxwire, in this day in age, hackers are working to see where there are holes they can exploit their evil doings and they take advantage of every vulnerability they can possibly find. That's why it's important to have an AV that:

Can stand up to the competition
Has a good detection rate
Can detect and block hackers
Has tool that tells you whether sites you are about to view are safe or not

Good surfing habits are also good just because if you use an antivirus, not internet security, you only have minimal tools to stay protected. Most antivirus packages do not include firewalls, anti-spam filtration, browser protection, and whatever else companies out there have. For the average user who doesn't get a lot of spam, isn't worried about hackers getting into their systems, or worried about hijackers, antivirus packages are the best suited for them. Where as me, I get a lot of spam (maybe too much), I do web design, I do a little bit of surfing, I do a lot of emailing, and more so anti-spam filtration, firewalls will do me well (providing that they are working). Norton 2010 and 2011 is always giving me an indication it's working because when the computer is idle for so long, it will display a small box at the right corner of the screen saying it's either doing a Full System Scan during the week, or it's performing other background tasks. I didn't see that with Kaspersky and definitely got no alerts from McAfee. I have never used Trend Micro so I don't know what their products include or entail.

Maxxwire said:

malexous said:

Maxxwire said:

500% higher than Norton.

I suppose you have proof?

Its not just about the Antivirus its about how the entire security suite tests. In the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge results Norton scored 40% and the best score was Comodo at 100%. Simple math tells us that a 100% score is 5 times higher than a 40% score. Its not that Comodo is 5X better than Norton its just that Norton does not have the State of the Art zero-day security features to be able to test along side Online Armor, Malware Defender, Kaspersky and Comodo in the rigorous 148 part Matousec tests to thwart all of the simulated exploits included in the tests. This is very important because these days hackers know that with the proliferation of Antivirus software a well executed exploit can help them to gain control of more computers because so many computers have little or no defense against exploits as is revealed in the 148 Matousec Test tesults.

It is quite clear that you are very happy with Norton 2011. Unfortunately I had a bad experience and got infected while using Norton 2009 so I can hope that you can understand why I took the most extreme measures I could find to make sure that my computers don't get infected again. So far I haven't been infected since I began using Sandboxie and Comodo and I am glad of that.

We each do what we can to keep our computers free of Malware and I hope that Norton continues to keep your computer free of Malware as it has been up until now. BTW- Do you use your browser in Sandboxie on a regular basis?

~Maxx~
.

malexous · 31 Oct 2010

codyw, we should all know that anti-virus won't catch everything and there is no "best". That's why we should all use a layered security approach which could include an anti-malware on-demand.

Norton scores well in most real-world tests and is often at the top.

[The above (and below) was typed before reading your last post]

-

There is only one software scoring above 90% on Matousec that has been included in numerous real-world tests containing real malware and released to the public and Norton always scores the same or better than it.

Maxxwire said:

Do you use your browser in Sandboxie on a regular basis?

We used to while running without real-time anti-virus (not recommended!) but because I currently have to share a computer, it doesn't suit the way I want the PC set-up. It's only used now when I want to do something without it making any changes to the computer such as testing software.

codyw · 31 Oct 2010

With all the clients that I have dealt with, both residential and commercial, they tell me the problem, I suggest the resolution, and they let me get to work. However, with all the people I have recommended Norton to, residential and commercial, NO ONE has had a complaint about it. When I was recommending Kaspersky, I had a couple of complaints about system slowdowns, which of course, every AV slows down a machine in some way or another, but I haven't gotten any complains thus far about Norton and 2 organizations have benefited from Norton so far from me. As long as they keep showing they are serious about protecting their existing customers and customers to come they should be OK in the long run. One of my clients now uses McAfee, and she is always complaining about something weird going on with her machine. She has been hit with everything from viruses to spyware, you name it! Instead of her switching now to Norton, she's waiting till her subscription ends with McAfee some time in January before she switches. So it just depends on what company you go with to see how their products work and how effective they are. When I first started out, I did research on Google, read endless forum posts, and watched videos on the software to see how well it performed in a "real world environment". That definitely helped too!

malexous said:

codyw, we should all know that anti-virus won't catch everything and there is no "best". That's why we should all use a layered security approach which could include an anti-malware on-demand.

Norton scores well in most real-world tests and is often at the top.

[The above was typed before reading your last post]

-

There is only one software scoring above 90% on Matousec that has been included in numerous real-world tests containing real malware and released to the public and Norton always scores the same or better than it.

Maxxwire said:

Do you use your browser in Sandboxie on a regular basis?

We used to while running without real-time anti-virus (not recommended!) but because I currently have to share a computer, it doesn't suit the way I want the PC set-up. It's only used now when I want to do something without it making any changes to the computer such as testing software.

kuliddar · 31 Oct 2010

Been reading some of the thread until all I saw was bickering between a few posters which for the regular user just confuses the hell of him. This is suppose to be a Support and Help forum not an AV geek forum that goes in technical details when some don't understand what the heck you are talking about.

With that said, we've been using Norton for the last 4 years and never had any issues with any of our three computers at home. We always buy multiple licenses on sale *usually 30$ for 3 licenses* which is the deal this week in my area to get Norton IS 2011. We are regular end users and don't download crap from pirated sites.

IMO the real culprit in the whole is McAFee. Kills files that it shouldn't kill, takes forever to load up, extremely bloated to the point of slowing system down to a still and most importantly, as it was mentioned, miss' a lot of malware. Again, this is just for the regular user.

Maxxwire · 31 Oct 2010

Digerati said:

Simple math tells us that a 100% score is 5 times higher than a 40% score.

Huh? In what universe is that? In this universe, simple math says that 40 x 2.5 = 100.

Sorry, you are right Comodo scored 250% better than Norton on Matousec's well rounded 148 tests. I'll edit my other post.

~Maxx~

Maxxwire · 31 Oct 2010

kuliddar said:

IMO the real culprit in the whole is McAFee. Kills files that it shouldn't kill, takes forever to load up, extremely bloated to the point of slowing system down to a still and most importantly, as it was mentioned, miss' a lot of malware. Again, this is just for the regular user.

I have cleaned up 2 computers which were running McAfee and each one had between 50 and 100 pieces of Malware. The one with the greater amount of Malware took 20 minutes just to get to the owner's email account online.

~Maxx~

malexous · 31 Oct 2010

Matousec tests aren't as straight forward as they may look. I've already posted some things such as how not all methods used in the tests are not being used by malware (Matousec is good marketing so some vendors started concentrating on these and the other methods instead of real malware and as a result became bloated and sometimes ineffective) and how not all products are tested fully. 12 products are tested only against 9 tests, 4 products are tested only against 12 tests, etc.

Before real malware can attempt any of the methods used in the tests they must first go undetected by (let's talk about Norton then) Antivirus Auto-Protect (definitions and heuristics, I believe) and SONAR3 (will also monitor the malware as they do their thing; sometimes blocking and removing the malware if it wasn't already upon download). There are also other prevention measures such as Norton Insight, IPS and Norton Safe Web (Norton Safe Web is only in NIS and N360 but Norton Safe Web Lite can be downloaded and installed for free).

All products are set to their highest usable settings with the intention that they will ask what to do. The highest testing product probably asked the user, at least, 148 times, allow or block? At least, 148 times Matousec probably clicked block (or similar option). Matousec does not like to test products that silently protect the user [DefenseWall would score really well {possibly 100%} if it was included [it can also be set up to be more interactive. Matousec didn't find the setting or thought it wasn't "usable"]).

[Above posted to help others interpret the results how they like]

There is also a lot of controversy surrounding Matousec and his tests around the internet and certain incidents suggest that Matousec is more about the publicity and money than anything else.

Digerati · 31 Oct 2010

I have a question about cloud based antivirus! Is it better than the traditional where the traditional keeps everything on the host computer or is it better where everything is in the cloud?

The problem with cloud based anything is you have to connect to get there. And you have to ensure you are really there and have not been redirected somewhere else.