Norton Internet Security 2011

[malexous]

Digerati, I don't think you should underestimate human ignorance. Also, rogues sometimes get installed through drive-by downloads which, if nothing else, is a nuisance.

AV-Test.org are releasing results of a test performed on Windows XP next week. At least, with tests using real malware, I don't mind testing performed on Windows XP as the tests are meant for the anti-virus program and not Windows. Most Windows users still use XP.

 

[Digerati]

I don't. I have always said that the user is the always the weakest link.

 

[codyw]

I am more of a fan of Norton's consumer products more than I am a fan of their corporate products. When a client calls me asking what AV is good for home or commercial I usually recommend Norton IS just because the corporate software through Symantec, Endpoint Protection, isn't very effective. I have watched a few videos on YouTube and the person showing how Endpoint worked in a "real world situation" threw threats at it. The latest video done on Endpoint failed miserably. I've been using NIS 2011 since the final version came out and no problems, no infections! I am happy to say so far 2 organizations have benefited from Norton on my account and no complaints!

 

[Digerati]

When a client calls me asking what AV is good for home or commercial I usually recommend Norton IS

Well, I rarely recommend a product that will cost my clients money when there are fully capable free alternatives available. And NIS not only costs upfront, but has regular recurring/renewal fees as well.

Now some products are only free for home and non-commercial use. Avast! for example. So care must be taken when recommending them.

 

[Maxxwire]

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

It is estimated that over 40,000 new pieces of Malware are released onto the Internet every day around the world and relying on the definitions to be released for an antiquated blacklist Antivirus software to protect your computer even the best rated AV will be completely unaware of these Zero Day Malware.

This is why Norton fails so miserably on the 148 Matousec Tests. Just because Norton does not have State of the Art multi-level default deny protection that can detect Zero Day Malware does not mean the test is unfair.

I didn't understand this either until after Norton 2009 let Malware onto my computer without detecting it and then the deficiencies of its 20th century definitions based Antivirus became crystal clear!

~Maxx~
.

 

[malexous]

As has already been mentioned (possibly in another thread), the technologies in Norton 2011 is much more advanced than in Norton 2009.

To protect against "zero day" malware Norton Antivirus 2011 uses IPS, SONAR3 (behaviour blocker), heuristics and a reputation system containing nearly two billion files.

 

[Digerati]

The best way to avoid Zero Day malware is to avoid risky practices - that is, do not participate in illegal filesharing at P2P sites or via torrents, do not visit illegal porn or gambling sites, and do not follow links in unsolicited emails or chat sites for these are all sites and activities bad guys wallow in, and where they release their brand new malicious code. Why? Because they know careless users will be there and that many of these sites are not monitored for illegal activity.

So again, it is up to the user to "practice safe computing".

 

[malexous]

This is why Norton fails so miserably on the 148 Matousec Tests.

Norton 2010 was tested against 85/148 tests.

 

[Maxxwire]

To protect against "zero day" malware Norton Antivirus 2011 uses IPS, SONAR3 (behaviour blocker), heuristics and a reputation system containing nearly two billion files.

That's all well and good and yet Norton fails the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge on an ongoing basis with 40% passing while several more advanced Security Suites do much better on the 148 tests with several in the 90% range and one even scoring 100%. Use Norton if you want, but I and an additional 1,000,000+ more people each month prefer the freeware with the perfect score. The days of charging billion$ of dollar$ a year for $ubstandard computer $ecurity are waning...

~Maxx~
.

 

[Maxxwire]

Norton 2010 was tested against 85/148 tests.

Webroot, Zone Alarm, Avira and others were tested on only 84 tests, but the report shows Norton passed 40% of 148 tests on the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge.

~Maxx~
.

 

[malexous]

several more advanced Security Suites do much better on the 148 tests with several in the 90% range and one even scoring 100%.

And some of those fail to detect malware that Norton detects when real samples are used.

You can look at simulators (Matousec, leaktests) or you can look at real malware (AV-Comparatives.org, AV-Test.org, etc.)

Webroot, Zone Alarm, Avira and others were tested on only 84 tests, but the report shows Norton passed 40% of 148 tests on the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge.

Look at the .pdf for Norton.

 

[Maxxwire]

And some of those fail to detect malware that Norton detects when real samples are used.

Is that why Norton is the only Security Suite that ever completely failed at detection and let Malware into my computer? Obviously you have no idea what its like to be betrayed by Norton. I went looking for real preventative protection and instead of outdated after the infection detection and removal and stepped up to Sandboxie and a top testing Firewall and HIPS and I haven't detected a piece of Malware on my computer since not even so much as a tracking cookie with my browser running in the virtual space of Sandboxie...

~Maxx~
.

 

[malexous]

Sandboxie is one software we both use (I only use it on special occasions now) and recommend...

Is that why Norton is the only Security Suite that ever completely failed at detection and let Malware into my computer?

How many have you tried and how do you know most of them wouldn't have failed with the same infection?

What did you use to detect the infection?

 

[Maxxwire]

How many have you tried and how do you know most of them wouldn't have failed with the same infection? What did you use to detect the infection?

Don't try to cover for Norton. Norton failed my computer plain and simple. The Malware that Norton let into my computer was quite common as it was detected by another program on the computer at the time. Norton failed to protect my computer and the Malware was detected and named by another security software much to the embarrassment of Norton.

After I uninstalled Norton and cleaned up the mess it left I installed Sandboxie which puts the aging Antivirus technology out of business because Malware can be destroyed from within the virtual space of Sandboxie where it can not harm the computer and the only use aging and outmoded Antivirus technology has is providing the name of the Malware that is to be destroyed in the virtual sandbox.

~Maxx~
.

 

[malexous]

Norton has never failed our computers. Detected many things back in the day and continues to protect my sister... the type that needs all the help they can get.

Whatever security software detected it most likely has failed many times too.

I'm not trying to cover up for Norton. I've watched it fail in my tests just like every other anti-virus and almost all other security products. Nothing can guarantee 100% protection. Not even the top scorers on Matousec.

 

[malexous]

Norton failed my computer plain and simple. The Malware that Norton let into my computer was quite common as it was detected by another program on the computer at the time.

Every security software in the world has missed malware that another has detected. We're talking about one
infection from 1-2 years ago and a product from 1-2 years ago.

 

[Maxxwire]

Every security software in the world has missed malware that another has detected. We're talking about one
infection from 1-2 years ago and a product from 1-2 years ago.

Why are you making excuses for Norton's failure? Only one Security Suite has failed my computer and that was Norton. No other Security software has ever failed on any of my computers...just Norton.

~Maxx~
.

 

[Maxxwire]

Whatever security software detected it most likely has failed many times too.

I'm not trying to cover up for Norton. I've watched it fail in my tests just like every other anti-virus and almost all other security products. Nothing can guarantee 100% protection. Not even the top scorers on Matousec.

No, don't try to blame the other security software that embarrassed Norton by catching the Malware that Horton let on to my computer undetected only Norton failed on my computer the other computer security program never failed...only Norton failed!

Don't get antiquated Antivirus software which does fail often because it relies on a definitions blacklist confused with the multi-layered computer security of the top scorers on the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge which use State of the Art Automatic Sandboxing of unrecognized programs, HIPS which can detect zero-day Malware which an Antivirus can't along with Cloud Based Malware scanning and Cloud Based Behavior Blocking which garner them scores 500% higher than Norton.

How ironic that a rag tag group of volunteer computer security programmers could write security software that consistently tests 250% more effective in 148 security challenges than the multi-billion dollar $ymantec corporation could afford to buy and then run into the ground like they did with the PC Tools Firewall Plus that was at the very top of the Matousec test results before $ymantec bought them out and now PC Tools ranks 12th just above $ymantec's Norton Internet $ecurity.

~Maxx~
.

 

[malexous]

500% higher than Norton.

I suppose you have proof?

How am I blaming other security software? The other security program never failed you. Doesn't mean it never fails. What is the security program you speak of?

"Don't get antiquated Antivirus software which does fail often"

Then start posting the same in other threads where MSE, Avast! etc. are being discussed/recommended. Norton catches malware they don't (and vice versa). (e.g. AV-Test.org · Tests of Anti-Virus- and Security-Software)

 

[codyw]

I was completely unaware of all Norton's failures. I do know that some products struggle when it comes to dealing with rogue AV's just because they can burry themselves deep in your system. I used Norton 2010 last year and part of this year before upgrading to the 2011 version and have not had an invasion yet. One of my clients had an invasion while using Norton 2010 (and they still are) and Norton blocked both attacks with nothing let in. I have watched tests on YouTube on the 2010 and 2011 versions and they all seemed to be about the same. I did notice that Trend Micro didn't get the best overall rating on some tests though...