Norton 2010 got me infected

[jav]

I did hear that the Norton products from 2008 and earlier had a detection that varied. I am still using the 2010 version and I have also seen great reviews on it.

2011 version of both NAV and NIS has already been released

Norton Internet Security 2011 and Norton AntiVirus... - Norton Community

And they do offer free upgrade for existing customers NIS and NAV (2006 and newer)

If you are an existing customer with an active subscription to Norton Internet Security or Norton AntiVirus (2006 or newer), you can update to the latest version for FREE. To do this, simply go to Norton Update Center and select Update Me Now.

If you are still using it I strongly recommend you to upgrade to 2011 version.
Norton Update Center

 

[Maxxwire]

Wishmaster- The feature in Comodo Firewall Pro that improved the security of my computer the most was its Proactive Defense + HIPS detection that gave me the confidence that I would have even better protection than with UAC in that now no process can run on the desktop without my prior permission and the best part being that it only asks for a permission once and then remembers it. This is what has kept Comodo at the top of the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge with a 100% detection rate for so long while Norton 2010 makes such a poor showing with a 40% pass rate on the same 148 part series of tests.

~Maxx~
.

 

[codyw]

I tried that with it always asking but it got to be a nuisance. However, that is my plan in the event I ever do get slammed with a bad virus that way, when it attempts to call out, it won't be able to and will have to ask for permission.

 

[Keiichi25]

I tried that with it always asking but it got to be a nuisance. However, that is my plan in the event I ever do get slammed with a bad virus that way, when it attempts to call out, it won't be able to and will have to ask for permission.

That is where you need to work a bit more on your Firewall when you know certain programs, for instance, should have exceptions or open them up manually so that they are no longer asking every time.

Whenever you install a program you are familiar with and trust with your life with, you should look at opening the appropriate holes within your firewall for that specific reason.

While being 'nagged' about certain things, it is always important to have that little nag instead of just arbitrarily opening it up and leaving yourself open to attack. I am sure you know this full and well, but just remember, that you aren't completely in the hands of the software you use, and you can manage it to work with you as well.

 

[Maxxwire]

I tried that with it always asking but it got to be a nuisance. However, that is my plan in the event I ever do get slammed with a bad virus that way, when it attempts to call out, it won't be able to and will have to ask for permission.

If you first scan your computer to make sure that it is clean then when you set up the Firewall with HIPS you can use Training Mode and it will learn all of programs you are running without any pop-ups and make safe rules for them so you will not get pop-ups for them again. I rarely if ever see a pop-up running in Safe Mode except when installing new programs. It is a good security feature which makes sure that the operator who is installing the program.

The Firewall stops much more than viruses that try to call out and not just Spyware but almost every program I have ever installed has made a request to phone home during the installation and some of them even before starting the install, but without the Firewall making the program ask for permission you would never know that it had made outside contact over the internet! There are also plenty of Microsoft programs that call Redmond every day like Windows\System32\rundll32.exe and Explorer. Windows Media Player and Sidebar also get chatty and try to call home whenever they are used.

~Maxx~
.

 

[codyw]

Hmm, interesting tips. However, I also did hear on Thursday that Symantec released the 2011 version of NAV & NIS. I was trying to hold off to see if there were any "leftover bugs" in it but after this last email worm that was going around, I decided to upgrade it right away. Because I get so much spam, this recent attack that was in the wild raised the red flags for me but luckily I didn't have the worm in any spam messages I had...yet...

 

[Maxxwire]

codyw- I hope that NIS 2011 works out for you. I once used NIS, but as its Matousec Proactive Security Challenge score of 40% shows there is much better computer security software out there and some of the Suites are absolutely free!

~Maxx~
.

 

[malexous]

So it is implicit in this quote that products are not always fully tested. If they don't advance through all the levels, they get an automatic 0% on the levels for which they were not tested. So the overall score will be very low if a product only made it to the first level.

Plus Norton does not block certain tests because there is no malicious behaviour.

There are many tests from other organisations where Norton is at the top.

 

[Maxxwire]

There are many tests from other organizations where Norton is at the top.

It all depends on who you want to believe. PC Magazine which is supported by advertising revenues not only placed Norton at the top of their testing, but went so far as to make an elaborate effort to try to prove that all freeware computer security software is inferior to pay to use shareware programs like Norton.

I know for sure is what works very well on my computer though and that is running my browser in Sandboxie 3.38 x64 and clearing all downloads at Virus Total before allowing them to be transfered onto my 500 GB Verbatim remote drive. Using Sandboxie has kept my computer from having so much as even a single detection of malware for almost 2 years!

~Maxx~
.

 

[malexous]

I believe my own experience as well as real-world tests performed by AV-Comparatives, AV-Test.org and PC Security Labs.

 

[codyw]

Did NIS 2011 have a 40% score in proactive guarding or was that older versions? According to some of the things I have read from PCmag it is OK. But the spam filter still could be better if I read that correctly.

codyw- I hope that NIS 2011 works out for you. I once used NIS, but as its Matousec Proactive Security Challenge score of 40% shows there is much better computer security software out there and some of the Suites are absolutely free!

~Maxx~
.

 

[Maxxwire]

Did NIS 2011 have a 40% score in proactive guarding or was that older versions? According to some of the things I have read from PCmag it is OK. But the spam filter still could be better if I read that correctly.

Matousec has not tested since Norton 2011 has been released. I've attached the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge results from 1 year ago and as can be seen Norton 2009 had a 66% pass rate with the 48 part test and then and then dropped off to a 40% pass rate when Norton 2010 was tested using the new 148 part test so we'll just have to wait and see how Norton 2011 does.

~Maxx~
.

 

[Wishmaster]

Perhaps Im missing something here, but isn't Nortons SONAR basically a form of HIPS?

I know its purpose is to identify and block new or unknown threats.

Im also curious about that test result. Was that with Nortons FW set at "Auto" and what Auto settings?

I've used Comodo before, and it is a quite effective FW. So Im not bashing it.
But I tend to think, and Firewall which is set to always notify, unless you have created a rule for that specific app, will be equally effective.

I mean, if you set the Firewall to block all incoming and outgoing activity unless specifically allowed, seems they will all perform the same.

The only difference is COMODO is set that way by default, where as many others are not. What if they are all tested setup the same?

 

[Maxxwire]

Perhaps Im missing something here, but isn't Nortons SONAR basically a form of HIPS?

The only difference is COMODO is set that way by default, where as many others are not. What if they are all tested setup the same?

AFAIK Dave Matousec tests all security programs in default mode so that there is no favoritism as far as setup goes.

Personally speaking I don't use Comodo because it tests better than any other computer security suite but rather because when I was using Norton it allowed my computer to become infected so I replaced it with and continue to use the Comodo Firewall and Proactive Defense+ HIPS and browse the internet within the virtual space of Sandboxie because they have kept both of my computers completely clean without the detection of so much as a single tracking cookie according to several on demand scanners and as far as I am concerned maintaining a clean machine is the bottom line when it comes to computer security.

~Maxx~
.

 

[Victek]

It all depends on who you want to believe. PC Magazine which is supported by advertising revenues not only placed Norton at the top of their testing, but went so far as to make an elaborate effort to try to prove that all freeware computer security software is inferior to pay to use shareware programs like Norton.

~Maxx~
.

Currently PCMag.com rates the free Panda Cloud Antivirus 4 out of 5 dots (or red circles, whatever) and makes it an "Editor's Choice". That seems to conflict with your statement about trying to prove freeware inferior.

 

[Maxxwire]

That seems to conflict with your statement about trying to prove freeware inferior.

I was speaking of a particular article in PC Magazine that was published last year in which they set out to prove that freeware was inferior to shareware when it came to computer security and it was a freeware bashfest.

If you are a fan of freeware which uses both a cloud Antivirus and a cloud Behavior Blocker as a bonus you might check the Comodo Forum starting 9-14-2010 because CIS 2011 v5 is scheduled to be released that day.

~Maxx
.

 

[Victek]

I was speaking of a particular article in PC Magazine that was published last year in which they set out to prove that freeware was inferior to shareware when it came to computer security and it was a freeware bashfest.

If you are a fan of freeware which uses both a cloud Antivirus and a cloud Behavior Blocker as a bonus you might check the Comodo Forum starting 9-14-2010 because CIS 2011 v5 is scheduled to be released that day.

~Maxx
.

My point is you appeared to make a blanket statement about PCmag.com implying it's reviews are biased because they are "ad supported" and they bash freeware security software. Generally I feel it's better to look at reviews on an individual basis. Is there something in PCmag's NIS 2011 review that you disagree with? The reviews of security software from pcmag tend to be quite detailed and even when I don't completely agree with the methodology or conclusions I feel there's a lot to be learned. I've used many freeware apps in the past including CIS. CIS in particular is not for the faint of heart and I would only recommend it to people who are already quite knowledgeable about security software - in other words the people who don't need my recommendations

 

[Maxxwire]

My point is you appeared to make a blanket statement about PCmag.com implying it's reviews are biased because they are "ad supported" and they bash freeware security software. Generally I feel it's better to look at reviews on an individual basis.

I apologize if you got that impression, but I was referring to just that one isolated article from PC Magazine. I have gotten much benefit from reading other PC Magazine articles both before and since that one article that I spoke of.

~Maxx~
.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
These ratings carry about as much weight as a Stock Exchange "Whisper Number".

People do so many different things on their computers that any "standard" measurement is going to be fraught with errors.

IMO the only AV software that's worth ANYTHING AT ALL is that which is capable of detecting "malware" etc in REAL TIME.

Scanning AFTER the event is fine but all this will tell you that your Computer has been infected at some indeterminate previous time --what its done or what data etc has been compromised in the meantime is impossible to say.

I certainly would NEVER trust a computer that's been infected even if the "Best most sophisticated" product on the planet informs the user that the Virus has been "Quarantined" and / or the relevant files have been deleted.

Only a restore from a Clean image or a fresh install would convince me that the computer was OK to use again.


Slightly OT -- Why should Freeware or Open Source be inferior -- I can think of some GREAT freeware applications which can more than hold their own with commercial paid for products.

To name just a few :

LINUX (most distros)
Open Office
The GIMP
VLC dvd / media player
MySQL
Apache Web server (especially in conjuction with WAMP / LAMP
(Windows/Linux, Apache, MySQL,Php for those a bit mystified).

etc etc.

Don't discount freeware or Open Source products as always being inferior. In some cases they can be BETTER for home users since any defects can often be fixed quicker and you don't have to go through the whole rigmarole that a commercial organisation has to do when releasing a new version of a paid for product.


Cheers
jimbo

 

[Maxxwire]

jimbo- "I certainly would NEVER trust a computer that's been infected"... Right on!

I had an epiphany the day I went to the Tom's Hardware site and the Antivirus program I was running at the time informed me that I had been hit with a driveby Trojan and it wanted to know if I wanted to quarantine it. Not wanting the Malware in my computer I simply shut the browser and overwrote the virtual sandbox it had been running in with 7 passes of Schneier's Algorithm and it was Malware no more!

Since that day I have never run an Antivirus program because as you said "the only AV software that's worth ANYTHING AT ALL is that which is capable of of detecting "malware" etc in REAL TIME". So far Sandboxie has been very good to my computers allowing no infections and no detections for almost 2 years. Now days nothing gets in to my computer unless Virus Total and/or my on-demand scanners sign off on it before it leaves the virtual sandbox...

~Maxx~
.