Norton Internet Security 2011

[Maxxwire]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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!

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Maxxwire]

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~
.

 

[malexous]

Behaviour blockers and reputation systems are not old school.

 

[Maxxwire]

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]

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?

fake controversies

Matousec Discloses Critical Vulnerability in ALL HIPS - Wilders Security Forums

Matousec’s New Moves to Recapture the label “Trustworthy” « Smokey's Security Weblog

There are more links if you care to search.

 

[Mothered]

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.
Yes, I agree that malicious content does slip through, but what one AV detects, another will miss, and vice-versa.

 

[Maxxwire]

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...

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~
.

 

[malexous]

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

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.

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.)

 

[Digerati]

That's an interesting finding noted in that KHOBE link. Basically it seems Matousec reports a product is bad, but if the product's maker wants to know how, they have to pay (more than $1000!!!) for the report. That reminds me of some of these magical Registry and computer "optimizers" that find 800 errors in your Registry, but if you want to know what they are you have to pay for their product. That's a neat gimmick. I think I'll get on my blog and report that all Dall and Heward Packlet computers are bad, then maybe more people will buy a Digerati Computer.

As I said several pages ago - don't rely on one report.

 

[Maxxwire]

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~
.

 

[malexous]

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.