Norton Internet Security 2011

malexous- Your right that Norton takes a very a different approach to computer security than Online Armor, Kaspersky, Comodo or Malware Defender all of which do well in the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge.

Norton makes a product that anyone would find friendly to run and they pay fees to computer manufacturers to have their computer security software pre-loaded onto new computers hoping to gain more new customers.

Norton is still the ubiquitous 800 pound gorilla of computer security and there are many of us who appreciate a little diversity and some new approaches to computer security which require a whole new set of tests for the new innovations in State of the Art computer security that Online Armor, Kaspersky, Comodo and Malware Defender have put into their Security Suites that require a whole new level of security testing which is where the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge comes in. Norton's 40% score does not mean that it is inferior protection its just 'old school' protection on a set of cutting edge computer security tests. Like the Chinese say..."Bu i ang jo shr bu i ang"..."Different is just Different!" There's nothing wrong with Norton its just traditional computer security for the masses and therefore does not do well on the 148 Matousec tests like the better scoring security suites which have the very latest security software that allows them to excel on the Matousec tests.

The bottom line here is that it doesn't matter to me or anyone else that you run NIS 2011 in fact I'm glad that you found a Security Suite that meets your every need, but to cast dispersions on the few brilliant security programmers who have broken away from the herd and seek to invent new computer security applications not with solid proof but by casting thin veils of dispersion and fake controversies just because they are different is very short sighted because you may find yourself having to use some of these applications in NIS after Symantec buys another top level company who specializes in this new level of computer security products just like they did when they bought PC Tools which used to be #1 at the very the top of the Matousec list. Evidently Symantec has a much deeper respect for the value of Matousec's tests than you do when it comes to evaluating and acquiring other computer security companies.

~Maxx~
.

Behaviour blockers and reputation systems are not old school.

malexous said:

Behaviour blockers and reputation systems are certainly different but not old school.

Again I'm not trying to knock Norton because evidently it is protecting all of you just fine, but the behavior blocker is not Cloud Based like it is in the 'new school' computer security software deploys and the NIS reputation system could never have a large enough of a data base to have the same level of rigorous zero-day detection power of HIPS which goes a long way toward explaining Norton's low score at Matousec. Not that Norton does not protect its users well it just can't pass this higher level of detection well without HIPS software.

Norton also does not make use of modern Sandboxing technology either. I'm not knocking Norton for this because you just don't want to include State of the Art Sandboxing technology in computer security for the masses who have no idea what a Sandbox is.

~Maxx~
.

malexous said:

Maxxwire said:

Evidently Symantec has a much deeper respect for the value of Matousec's tests than you do when it comes to evaluating and acquiring other computer security companies.

Looking forward to the Comodo acquisition... How can one acquisition be evidence?

How much evidence can the Symantec acquisition of PC Tools be? Because of it Melih will let never let Symantec buy Comodo after they completely destroyed the former Matousec top testing PC Tools software so that now it only tests #12 next to Norton's #13. PC Tools is now a mere shadow of the prodigious #1 rated computer security software that they were before Symantec acquired the company.

If you believe all that Wilder's slander about Dave Matousec and that by spreading that muck around it will somehow improve Norton's very poor scores by personally discrediting Dave Matousec it won't help Norton look any better.

Any time you want to quit fronting for Norton and just accept the Antivirus tests which it does well on and the excellent protection that you and those who use it enjoy and quit trying to assassinate the character of the fellow who designed the tests that Norton did poorly on as some sort of compensation for Norton's poor showing on a series of tests that Norton was not designed to do well on in the first place instead of the muck raking you have resorted to the better off Norton's reputation will be because when you stand on the positive attributes of Norton to represent it bodes much better at winning people over to Norton than stooping to slander and accusation against others to defend it.

This the kind of positive statement that is going to win support for Norton rather than lashing out in anger...

Mothered said:

Norton has been my main Security, for as long as I can remember. Even back In the days where Norton Firewall and Anti-spam were separate products.

I'm currently running Norton Internet Security 2011, and can't complain. I find It's Sonar protection to be an excellent defense mechanism Indeed.

Norton's security attributes are strong enough for it to stand on its own without worrying about how it did on a test that it was not designed to do well on. I need to get over the fact that Norton let 1 Downloading Trojan onto my computer and realize that it was just my sign to move on and find a Security Suite that I was happier with and I apologize for underestimating the tenacity with which you fellows defend Norton. When I read posts like Mothered's I realize that there are many Norton users with a long history of perfect protection and that they are the majority and my unfortunate Norton experience is in the minority.

~Maxx~
.

Maxxwire said:

How much evidence can the Symantec acquisition of PC Tools be?

Edit: Symantec announced the acquisition before PC Tools scored on top: Symantec to Acquire PC Tools and score much lower now since the addition of HIPS type tests: PC Tools Firewall + from good to bad - PC Tools Community Forum

Maxxwire said:

Norton's security attributes are strong enough for it to stand on its own without worrying about how it did on a test that it was not designed to do well on.

Which was my point from the get-go and to get away from quotes like these: "$ubstandard", "the deficiencies of its 20th century definitions based Antivirus" and (not your quote:) "useless against rogue AVs".

I recommend some of the top scoring software on Matousec to advanced users and Norton to all users. The Matousec results show the effectiveness of some of the top scoring programs (one of threads I linked to earlier has me saying a similar thing; I have never intended to suggest they can't protect but to suggest that Norton 2011 can) but products that score 2% like Mamutu doesn't mean they can't protect against most threats (Mamutu is very good to use as one of a set-up's layer), they just weren't designed to perform well in these tests.

HIPS software are designed for the tests because they are programed to alert for most actions. Norton's SONAR is not designed for the tests because it monitors every behaviour of a given software and determines for itself whether a file is malicious. "Autorun1 checks whether a malicious software can ensure its code to be persistent in the system by installing itself into the system registry so that Windows Explorer runs the malware every time the user logs in." Legitimate software does this and Autorun1 wasn't programed to do anything else so there is no reason for SONAR (in its mind, at least) to block it.

Maxxwire said:

If you believe all that Wilder's slander about Dave Matousec

The eccentricity of some Wilders members does not negate the controversy. If you don't want to read at Wilders, some of it is mentioned here: KHOBE - no problem - Security Blog (G Data did not know that the attack has been documented, in some form or another, a few times before [neither did Matousec, apparently]; the first time being 14 years ago.)

malexous said:

I recommend some of the top scoring software on Matousec to advanced users and Norton to all users.

Yes, there is computer security program to fit every user's specific security needs. Its refreshing to know that that you are open minded and knowledgeable of the vast array of computer security programs that fulfill the many kinds of computer security needs in a world full of computer users with very diverse computer security needs.

~Maxx~
.

Edit: Just came across another person that, since putting the recent Norton versions on 100s of clients systems, no longer get call backs about malware.