How much memory does Norton AntiVirus eat up?
*Vanguard*
products installed, how much memory is consumed by all processes
associated with Norton AntiVirus?
I have Norton Internet Security 2003 which includes an integrated Norton
AntiVirus 2003. Together their memory footprint is 134MB. Uffda, what
a pig! After struggling with their firewall for a couple years on
several machines, wasting lots of time with their tech support, and
having to reinstall numerous times, I'm dumping their firewall.
However, I still like their anti-virus product. However, after trying
to install it separately, and after talking to Symantec, I find that
Norton Antivirus cannot be installed alone. For NIS2003, you can
install just NIS2003 or NIS2003 + NAV2003, but you cannot install just
NAV2003. As a result, I am evaluating what other anti-virus software I
may use. I'm not really interested in users' opinions as to what they
think works best because no user gets full exposure to all in the wild
viruses. After reading several independent lab tests on many anti-virus
products, the only ones that get high ratings (over 98%) are those that
use the KAV engine, which is Kaspersky (and, I think, NOD32).
In any case, if and only if I decide to continue with Norton AntiVirus,
I'd like to know what just what is its memory footprint. I can't
install it separately from Norton Internet Security. If you have more
than one Symantec product installed, they share some processes and add
others so it would be difficult to isolate just the memory usage for
Norton AntiVirus alone. The auto-protect service (navapsvc.exe) is
small at just 996 KB. If NAV uses the ccApp.exe (Common Client
Application) process, that increases the footprint. The other processes
I remember were ccEvtMgr (Symantec's Event Manager) and ccPxySvc (their
transparent proxy). If ccPxySvc is NOT used for NAV then the memory
footprint for NAV would go way down. All the NIS + NAV processes ate up
134 MB of which somewhere around 115 MB of that was just for the
ccPxySvc service. It NAV does not use that piggish proxy process then
maybe it would only consume 19 MB. However, although NAV might not need
the transparent proxy for web browsing (since they install a browser
helper object to IE), they might still need it to handle e-mail data
streams. ccPxySvc was the pig so if it isn't used for NAV alone then
the memory requirement goes way down.
--
____________________________________________________________
*** Post replies to newsgroup. Share with others.
*** Email domain = ".com" *AND* append "=NEWS=" to Subject.
____________________________________________________________
Unknown
error free your system can run.
"*Vanguard*" <no-e...@reply-to-newsgroup.invalid> wrote in message
news:ubN02PZR...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
*Vanguard*
> Why do you waste your time with all that garbage? Run without it and
> see how error free your system can run.
Answer the question, please. I'm not interested in personal opinions
regarding personal experiences with the various anti-virus products
available, small or big. Personal experiences are limited in the number
of viruses to which a particular user was ever exposed along with their
level of expertise in fully eradicating the problem. Most users are
ignorant in their use and hope everything is automatic, and few even
know how to kill and stop all the processes and in which order to bring
them back up. I may not stick with NAV but it won't be because of such
a terse and unsubstantianted opinion as yours.
My question was to ask NAV-only users what is the memory footprint of
that product. Obviously you do not qualify to answer since you do not
use that product. If I asked what was the disk footprint for Windows XP
Pro SP-1 alone, I don't care if it is better or worse than Linux.
Better or worse wasn't the question. Memory usage was the question.
Stay on topic, please.
JLee
are seeing with NIS 2003. Files associated with this program and memory
usage are:
ccApp 4,060K
ccEvtMgr 2,240K
navapsvc 512K
nopdb 264K
NPROTECT 1,584K
Is your ccPxySvc the NIS firewall??
"*Vanguard*" <no-e...@reply-to-newsgroup.invalid> wrote in message
news:ubN02PZR...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
*Vanguard*
> I use Norton System Works 2003 and have nowhere near the memory usage
> you are seeing with NIS 2003. Files associated with this program and
> memory usage are:
> ccApp 4,060K
> ccEvtMgr 2,240K
> navapsvc 512K
> nopdb 264K
> NPROTECT 1,584K
>
> Is your ccPxySvc the NIS firewall??
Correct, ccPxySvc is the transparent firewall. Sometimes I wish it
wasn't transparent and would let me configure its settings along with
allowing you to configure the proxy chaining order within the clients
and within other proxies, like the browser, e-mail, and anti-spam
programs. But Symantec figures all of their users are idiots so it uses
a transparent-only proxy.
It looks like your NAV-only footprint would total 8.4MB (as I recall,
the nopdb process is SpeedDisk which is not recommended for use on
NTFS5). That's a whopping reduction in the memory footprint. My
navapsvc.exe process was 1.95 times the size you report for yours.
Guess that integration with NIS comes at a cost.
Unknown
waste your time with those?
"*Vanguard*" <no-e...@reply-to-newsgroup.invalid> wrote in message
Lindsay
I think it's a perfectly valid response. If your concerned with memory, then
get rid of NIS2003. I have never had NAV and I don't get viruses. Why run
unnesseccary programs? My pc is stacks faster without programs like that
consuming all the resources!
You wrote on Sat, 29 May 2004 15:55:48 GMT:
U> Why do you waste your time with all that garbage? Run without it and see
U> how error free your system can run.
U> "*Vanguard*" <no-e...@reply-to-newsgroup.invalid> wrote in message
U> news:ubN02PZR...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
??>> For users of Norton AntiVirus *but* which have NO other Symantec
??>> products installed, how much memory is consumed by all processes
??>> associated with Norton AntiVirus?
??>>
??>> I have Norton Internet Security 2003 which includes an integrated
??>> Norton AntiVirus 2003. Together their memory footprint is 134MB.
??>> Uffda, what a pig! After struggling with their firewall for a couple
??>> years on several machines, wasting lots of time with their tech
??>> support, and having to reinstall numerous times, I'm dumping their
??>> firewall. However, I still like their anti-virus product. However,
??>> after trying to install it separately, and after talking to Symantec,
??>> I find that Norton Antivirus cannot be installed alone. For NIS2003,
??>> you can install just NIS2003 or NIS2003 + NAV2003, but you cannot
??>> install just NAV2003. As a result, I am evaluating what other
??>> anti-virus software I may use. I'm not really interested in users'
??>> opinions as to what they think works best because no user gets full
??>> exposure to all in the wild viruses. After reading several
??>> independent lab tests on many anti-virus products, the only ones that
??>> get high ratings (over 98%) are those that use the KAV engine, which
??>> is Kaspersky (and, I think, NOD32).
??>>
??>> In any case, if and only if I decide to continue with Norton
??>> AntiVirus, I'd like to know what just what is its memory footprint. I
??>> can't install it separately from Norton Internet Security. If you
??>> have more than one Symantec product installed, they share some
??>> processes and add others so it would be difficult to isolate just the
??>> memory usage for Norton AntiVirus alone. The auto-protect service
??>> (navapsvc.exe) is small at just 996 KB. If NAV uses the ccApp.exe
??>> (Common Client Application) process, that increases the footprint.
??>> The other processes I remember were ccEvtMgr (Symantec's Event
??>> Manager) and ccPxySvc (their transparent proxy). If ccPxySvc is NOT
??>> used for NAV then the memory footprint for NAV would go way down. All
??>> the NIS + NAV processes ate up 134 MB of which somewhere around 115 MB
??>> of that was just for the ccPxySvc service. It NAV does not use that
??>> piggish proxy process then maybe it would only consume 19 MB.
??>> However, although NAV might not need the transparent proxy for web
??>> browsing (since they install a browser helper object to IE), they
??>> might still need it to handle e-mail data streams. ccPxySvc was the
??>> pig so if it isn't used for NAV alone then the memory requirement goes
??>> way down.
??>>
??>> --
??>> ____________________________________________________________
??>> *** Post replies to newsgroup. Share with others.
??>> *** Email domain = ".com" *AND* append "=NEWS=" to Subject.
??>> ____________________________________________________________
??>>
With best regards, Lindsay. E-mail: lin...@home.com
Kelly Cotter
"*Vanguard*" <no-e...@reply-to-newsgroup.invalid> wrote in message
news:ehUWcsZR...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
to those people who dont use antivirus software how do you know you havent
had any virus's and do you use a firewall ?
JLee
ZoneAlarm to provide my firewall protection and so far so good. If you like
NAV, these days you can get it the 2003 version essentially for free after
all the rebates and dump all their firewall nonsense.
"*Vanguard*" <no-e...@reply-to-newsgroup.invalid> wrote in message
news:ehUWcsZR...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Lindsay
Why would anyone be using a 3rd party firewall with XP anyway? It has a
built in one.
You wrote on Sat, 29 May 2004 11:21:15 -0700:
J> "*Vanguard*" <no-e...@reply-to-newsgroup.invalid> wrote in message
J> news:ehUWcsZR...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
??>> JLee said in news:qF2uc.2364$aM1.2348@fed1read02:
??>>> I use Norton System Works 2003 and have nowhere near the memory usage
??>>> you are seeing with NIS 2003. Files associated with this program and
??>>> memory usage are:
??>>> ccApp 4,060K
??>>> ccEvtMgr 2,240K
??>>> navapsvc 512K
??>>> nopdb 264K
??>>> NPROTECT 1,584K
??>>>
??>>> Is your ccPxySvc the NIS firewall??
??>>
??>> Correct, ccPxySvc is the transparent firewall. Sometimes I wish it
??>> wasn't transparent and would let me configure its settings along with
??>> allowing you to configure the proxy chaining order within the clients
??>> and within other proxies, like the browser, e-mail, and anti-spam
??>> programs. But Symantec figures all of their users are idiots so it
??>> uses a transparent-only proxy.
??>>
??>> It looks like your NAV-only footprint would total 8.4MB (as I recall,
??>> the nopdb process is SpeedDisk which is not recommended for use on
??>> NTFS5). That's a whopping reduction in the memory footprint. My
??>> navapsvc.exe process was 1.95 times the size you report for yours.
??>> Guess that integration with NIS comes at a cost.
Kelly Cotter
"Lindsay" <lin...@home.com> wrote in message
news:me5uc.8097$wI4.1...@wards.force9.net
> Hello, JLee!
> Why would anyone be using a 3rd party firewall with XP anyway? It has
> a built in one.
> You wrote on Sat, 29 May 2004 11:21:15 -0700:
>
>> "*Vanguard*" <no-e...@reply-to-newsgroup.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ehUWcsZR...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> JLee said in news:qF2uc.2364$aM1.2348@fed1read02:
>>>> I use Norton System Works 2003 and have nowhere near the memory
>>>> usage you are seeing with NIS 2003. Files associated with this
>>>> program and memory usage are:
>>>> ccApp 4,060K
>>>> ccEvtMgr 2,240K
>>>> navapsvc 512K
>>>> nopdb 264K
>>>> NPROTECT 1,584K
>>>>
>>>> Is your ccPxySvc the NIS firewall??
>>>
>>> Correct, ccPxySvc is the transparent firewall. Sometimes I wish it
>>> wasn't transparent and would let me configure its settings along
>>> with allowing you to configure the proxy chaining order within the
>>> clients and within other proxies, like the browser, e-mail, and
>>> anti-spam programs. But Symantec figures all of their users are
>>> idiots so it uses a transparent-only proxy.
>>>
>>> It looks like your NAV-only footprint would total 8.4MB (as I
>>> recall, the nopdb process is SpeedDisk which is not recommended for
>>> use on NTFS5). That's a whopping reduction in the memory
>>> footprint. My navapsvc.exe process was 1.95 times the size you
>>> report for yours. Guess that integration with NIS comes at a cost.
>>>
>
> With best regards, Lindsay. E-mail: lin...@home.com
xp has a limited simple firewall
Microsoft's sp2 for xp addresses this with a much stronger firewall and
antivirus integration in the new "security centre"
sp2 beta rc1 can be downloaded here so you can see the difference
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/sp2predl.mspx
JLee
party firewall. Same reason that I don't rely on just my router's firewall.
"Lindsay" <lin...@home.com> wrote in message
news:me5uc.8097$wI4.1...@wards.force9.net...
*Vanguard*
> I don't use any antivirus programs. You didn't answer my question?
> Why do you waste your time with those?
I did answer your question. Note the statement in my response of "I'm
not interested in personal opinions ...". Not everyone wants to run
under your particular setup. G'day.
*Vanguard*
news:fg4uc.568$4D.64...@news-text.cableinet.net:
Sorry, but the topic is NOT about orating atop a crate to the crowd to
extol the good or bad of anti-virus software or the qualities and
effacies of each anti-virus product. Please stay focused on the topic.
*IF* you are running NAV alone, I would like to hear what is the memory
use for each NAV-related process.
Ken Blake, MVP
Lindsay <lin...@home.com> typed:
> Why would anyone be using a 3rd party firewall with XP anyway?
It has
> a built in one.
Although there *is* a built-in firewall, many of us consider that
third-party firewalls are better. In general, they have two
distinct advantages over the built-in firewall:
The XP firewall monitors incoming traffic, but does nothing to
stop spyware programs trying to call home. It also is much less
configurable than other choices.
For those reasons I recommend the free version of ZoneAlarm (or
some other choice) instead.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Jeanette Love
engine" always failed after I installed XP Pro. Others use it with no
problem at all --just wish I could.
I use Win XP Pro os a pentium 4. I tried Norton's and hated it because it
is so cumbersome.
Any one have any ideas about what might be causing it or what I could do to
fix it? I did write to ZA support but got no answers.
--
Jeanette Love
jl...@austin.rr.com
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/2004
Bill Drake
on a machine with less than 256MB of memory.
I recommend the use of 512MB of memory at minimum on
any machine where NSW/NIS are installed as a team.
Considerations:
1. The cost of 512MB of memory is trivial in comparison to
the cost of a system recovery required as a result of
a severe virus or worm infestation.
2. It is *not possible* to have a "small memory footprint"
and an *effective* real-time-virus-scanner/firewall/popup
blocker/spam-filter. And yes, you really need all that
integrated to get full benefit.
3. Closing *and keeping closed* all those holes in TCP/IP,
DCOM, javascript, vbscript and the other various bits and
pieces used as infection-vectors into the OS is a full-time
job *requiring* an intelligent-agent for true functionality.
This is *exactly* what NSW/NIS provides -- and there is
*no way around* the memory and CPU requirements
inherent in having something *useful and effective*
covering your butt. Monitoring system access in real-time
for suspicious activity means those programs must be
RAM-resident in order for the OS itself to remain
responsive -- this means you *have* to make that
hardware investment to get both safety and usability.
4. As well as the runtime-requirements for these programs,
there is also the startup-requirements -- which are also
substantial. Having more memory available at startup
for the load-functions to work with enables NSW/NIS to
initialize itself and perform the standard startup-process
housekeeping much more quickly -- so the programs can
then settle quickly into "watcher" mode and no longer
create a major impact on system responsiveness.
Running NSW/NIS on a memory-starved machine means
that initialization is *painfully slow* -- and as a result the
user-experience at startup is impacted for as much as
two or three minutes. Running in 512MB or more reduces
this impact to about 10-15 seconds.
5. Live-Update is another area that requires memory above
and beyond the runtime requirements. In this case, you
must first initialize and run the Live-Update Agent over
top of everything else, then you must instantiate the Live
Update engine in regards to *each and every piece* of
Symantec Software installed on your system. Then a
comparison must be made against the components and
modules actually installed on the system versus the
components and modules available as updates -- and the
appropriate selections must be made. This is *not* a
trivial-process in a memory-starved machine. It *is* a
trivial-process in a machine with adequate RAM memory.
Once the above comparisons have been made, then the
appropriate update-selections are engaged and these
items are downloaded from the Symantec servers or
their proxies. At that point, each of the various systems
targeted for update must be properly handled as far as
keeping the computer secure *during* the update. You
cannot simply shut down the AV or Firewall software while
an update is in progress -- you must keep the existing
versions of these modules active and then switch-over
transparently once all the various unpacking, updating and
file-replacement has occurred.
Again, as for the update-selection process -- the RAM
needed to perform the *switchover* is over-and-above the
RAM used for the runtime-environment -- and a system
starved for memory is *going* to impact the user as the
changeover takes place -- whereas a memory-rich system
will do the changeover in an eyeblink and the user won't
even know it happened.
Conclusions:
1. Users need to quit obsessing over RAM and Disk
requirements for modern OS builds. To have a
secure and transparent user-experience, modern
systems *require* the use of powerful intelligent
agents -- so that users can concentrate on their work,
rather than being constantly bedevilled by the vagaries
of OS-management itself.
2. There is no substitute for the *requirement* to provide
a competent hardware-environment for modern agent
software. If you want "automatic everything", then you
*need* to have enough hardware-horsepower so all
those "automatic things" can do-their-stuff -- while still
leaving enough CPU and memory for you-the-user to
do-your-stuff as well.
3. Whining and complaining about the above requirements
is unproductive, unrealistic and naive. If you wish to
*sacrifice* the usability benefits of running intelligent
agent software -- then be aware of the consequences
and be prepared to live with the results.
See any newsgroup providing virus or spyware support
to see the *real world* results of "cheapthink". The
only viable alternative is to *spend the money* to do the
job *properly*.
Best I can do for now. <tm>
Bill
brian.e...@hotmail.com
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Brian