Why you should never buy Symantec / Norton products
Dave
time, that it's still a decent gaming machine. He's living with mom's
boyfriend, who was trying to be helpful. So he (mom's boyfriend) upgraded
the system from (sygate personal firewall plus AVG anti-virus) to Norton
Internet Security 2006. My nephew said he was having trouble connecting to
the Internet after that, but I didn't know about Norton. So my nephew came
over to stay with us for a few weeks, and brought the whole computer system
with him. I couldn't get his computer to connect to our network at all.
Plus I found some files in the startup tab that looked suspiciously like
virus activity. But the system was protected by Norton, so it couldn't be
virus activity, could it?
Anyway, from previous experience, I know that Norton anything usually causes
more problems than it attempts to fix. But I didn't want to leave the
system unprotected. So I disconnected the system from the Internet
temporarily. Then I installed an old (but still works great!) version of
sygate personal firewall, plus the latest versions of AVG and Avast!
antivirus software.
So the system is still disconnected from the Internet, and I'm attempting to
uninstall Norton. Norton takes forever to uninstall (several minutes).
DURING THIS TIME, Avast! pops up a warning saying it's found a trojan on the
hard drive. (shit!) Later, Norton is still in the process of uninstalling
and AVG pops up a warning that it found a virus on the hard drive. (double
SHIT!!!)
So I finally got Norton uninstalled, connected the LAN, rebooted, and
confirmed that the system was connecting just fine to the Internet again.
(but now protected by a hardware firewall, a software firewall, and two
antivirus programs). Then I scheduled a virus scan (on boot) with Avast!
On reboot, Avast! ran a complete scan and found MANY DOZENS of trojan and
virus files.
And how much did the helpful "mom's boyfriend" spend on that worthless
Norton software? I don't want to know. -Dave
Don Freeman
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:Q4_mg.11099$o4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> So I finally got Norton uninstalled, connected the LAN, rebooted, and
> confirmed that the system was connecting just fine to the Internet again.
> (but now protected by a hardware firewall, a software firewall, and two
> antivirus programs). Then I scheduled a virus scan (on boot) with Avast!
> On reboot, Avast! ran a complete scan and found MANY DOZENS of trojan and
> virus files.
>
uninstalled, I had to manually delete some of the files and there are still
some registry entries it left behind. Peter Norton's tools used to be
considered the pinnacle of PC diagnostic and utility tools. He should sue
Symantic for defamation of character.
Don Freeman
"Abe" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:62uo9212evb885td0...@4ax.com...
> >He should sue Symantec for defamation of character.
> You mean for trashing his legacy.
>
Exactly.
HDRDTD
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:Q4_mg.11099$o4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
itemyar
For a short time, 'cause I was broke, I tried AVG and it worked okay, but I
went back to Norton when I built my new PC. 'Guess it's kind of like cars,
you have a bad experience with a Ford and you never buy one again!
Geoff
willing to bet those viruses are list at www.sarc.com, Symantec anti-virus
research center. It is more likely the virus definitions were not kept up
to date.
However, I agree with others, I do not think Norton products are as good as
they used to be.
-g
Fishface
> I had a similar experience, only I could never get Norton completely
> uninstalled, I had to manually delete some of the files and there are still
> some registry entries it left behind.
My employer bought a used Apple computer. He bought new Norton Internet
Security Suite from Symantec. The computer already had the program installed.
The uninstall program demanded the product key to uninstall. Didn't have it, couldn't
get it. The guy in India said he'd send a program to remove it. He didn't.
Another time, Symantec sales sent a disk that the computer could not read. After
waiting a half hour, the guy in India gave me another phone number. Another half
hour, another guy in India told me the first phone number. Glad I was getting paid,
but I and we are so done with Symantec.
Dave
"HDRDTD" <HDR...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:osydnR0-f-NK4gHZ...@giganews.com...
> He may have installed but never made sure it was kept up to date.
>
Every anti-virus I've ever installed has kept itself updated automatically,
by default. Why would norton be different? Oh, yet another reason not to
buy norton, I guess. -Dave
Dave
"Geoff" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Q60ng.1456$ii....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Nice story but if you have a list of viruses that AVG found, I would be
> willing to bet those viruses are list at www.sarc.com, Symantec anti-virus
> research center. It is more likely the virus definitions were not kept up
> to date.
Again, shouldn't anti-virus software update itself automatically, by
default? While using Norton, he was connected to the Internet via DSL modem
at least every other day. (though Norton itself was causing intermittent
Internet connection problems)
My point is, if the software wasn't updated regularly, that's a built-in
bug, errrrr . . . feature, of the software itself. -Dave
itemyar
to renew the subscription each year, otherwise it's going to stop retrieving
updates when it runs out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:3j1ng.1479$ii....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
ameijers
"Seymour Bigby-Heinz" <sb...@crock.o-stuff> wrote in message
news:sl9p9299quhrclskv...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 02:19:43 GMT, "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
>
(snip)
> Dave, you don't even know if the 'mother's boyfriend' left the
> software in it's default configuration. Many people shut off automatic
> updates on a variety of software when they prefer to control when the
> updates are done.
>
> Anecdotal evidence of one bad experience is completely lame. I use a
> variety of antivirus packages for maintaining my machines and
> Symantec is among the better ones.
>
I quite agree, and we have SAV (the modern name for Norton) running on about
2000 boxes at work. I use it at home because our corp license lets employees
use it free at home. The firewall alert lights up avery few minutes when I
am online. Damn spammers and botnet twerps are gonna kill the internet.....
aem sends...
JAD
"Seymour Bigby-Heinz" <sb...@crock.o-stuff> wrote in message
news:sl9p9299quhrclskv...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 02:19:43 GMT, "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
>
> >
> >news:Q60ng.1456$ii....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> Nice story but if you have a list of viruses that AVG found, I would be
> >> willing to bet those viruses are list at www.sarc.com, Symantec
anti-virus
> >> research center. It is more likely the virus definitions were not kept
up
> >> to date.
> >
> >Again, shouldn't anti-virus software update itself automatically, by
> >default? While using Norton, he was connected to the Internet via DSL
modem
> >at least every other day. (though Norton itself was causing intermittent
> >Internet connection problems)
>
> software in it's default configuration. Many people shut off automatic
> updates on a variety of software when they prefer to control when the
> updates are done.
>
> Anecdotal evidence of one bad experience is completely lame. I use a
> variety of antivirus packages for maintaining my machines and
> Symantec is among the better ones.
>
you have to use a ' variety ' because you use scamantic
JAD
"ameijers" <aeme...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Vc2ng.241699$Fs1.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
they all been running scamantic from the git go? then you don't know what
your missing in regards to system performance. Most people blame HP Compaq
etc or the ever popular MS for norton system worse and its destruction.
>
Charlie Wilkes
Yeah. It's crazy. If you managed to uninstall Norton, you're doing
better than I could. The last system I looked at, I basically told
the person, I can't get this off, and it is the problem, so the only
solution I know is to back up your data so I can purge your drive and
start over. She decided to muddle through.
Charlie
Charlie Wilkes
Yeah, if you've got IT people maintaining the installations, it
probably works. But the average person, cut loose with Norton AV, is
highly likely to end up with problems. My experience may be
anecdotal, but I've got a lot of anecdotes in my file at this point,
and I'm not even in the business, just a friendly neighbor.
http://free.grisoft.com for those who need something that (a) works
and (b) won't cause problems. The fact that it's free is just gravy
in a category this important.
Charlie
ToolPackinMama
> Anyway, from previous experience, I know that Norton anything usually causes
> more problems than it attempts to fix.
LOL, OMG that is true! I habitually warn people away from Norton
products, nowadays.
ToolPackinMama
> they all been running scamantic from the git go? then you don't know what
> your missing in regards to system performance.
You ain't never lie. I would never recommend Norton products - not only
because they are unnecessarily bloated, top-heavy, annoying, and
complex, - not only because they dig their damn tentacles in so deep in
so many directions that it is impossible to neatly uninstall - not only
because it is over-hyped and over-priced - mainly because it causes
visible, palpable system slowdown.
Plus, IMHO Norton antivirus has been compromised, it seems. Every
single person I serviced who had Norton antivirus turned out to be
infected with something. Usually several somethings. And most of them
WERE keeping it updated.
itemyar
Yeah I know, it's a conspiracy, somebody's being paid off to use their
products, right?
Shawn Hirn
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
Beats me. I use a Mac and a hardware firewall. Problem solved. No need
to waste my computer's processing cycles to filter out Windows malware.
H. Seldon
<snip>
> Beats me. I use a Mac and a hardware firewall. Problem solved. No need
> to waste my computer's processing cycles to filter out Windows malware.
And you're looking for what? A medal? A chest to pin it on? What?
You jackass.
Ed Medlin
"Seymour Bigby-Heinz" <sb...@crock.o-stuff> wrote in message
> product vendors are you working for?
>
> Sy
It hasn't exactly been a secret that Norton AV and Systemworks are extremely
bloated and cause a lot of performance problems the past few years. There
used to be a program called Symclean that would remove the majority of
Symantec/Norton AV and Systemworks registry entries (over 100 easy) but I am
not sure if it is still around.
Ed
JAD
"Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-392672.0...@news.giganews.com...
what do you do about mac malware? .
JAD
"Seymour Bigby-Heinz" <sb...@crock.o-stuff> wrote in message
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:19:26 -0700, "JAD" <kapa...@earthcharter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Anecdotal evidence of one bad experience is completely lame. I use a
> >> variety of antivirus packages for maintaining my machines and
> >> Symantec is among the better ones.
> >>
> >> Sy
> >
> >you have to use a ' variety ' because you use scamantic
> >
>
> Symantec is among the few that detects the most problems accurately.
>
> Sy
horse pucky.... I guess if I paid money for an incompetent product I would
try and defend it too
Tom
was when I ran Norton's defrag and it trashed the entire file
structure. Booted up to garbage onscreen.
--
You probably wouldn't worry about what people think of you,
if you could know how seldom they do.
...Olin Miller
itemyar
it! I was in Telecommunications and most of the companies that I dealt with
used it. Like it or not, it's still the most widely used program!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Who said it was the "choice of most businesses and governments"?
> --
> Michael Cecil
> http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
> http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/
JAD
"Seymour Bigby-Heinz" <sb...@crock.o-stuff> wrote in message
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 08:34:52 -0700, "JAD" <kapa...@earthcharter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >horse pucky.... I guess if I paid money for an incompetent product I
would
> >try and defend it too
>
> was an 'incompetent product', I'd say so.
>
> Sy
no you wouldn't....you would be admitting to ' paying ' for a product that
is huge on resources and is shoddy at detecting viruses(unless you count
'crashing the system' to prevent virus propagation a 'feature' ). Also
supporting its usage in your business environment, yikes, Not many would do
that.
Bob M
> You ain't never lie. I would never recommend Norton products - not only
> because they are unnecessarily bloated, top-heavy, annoying, and
> complex, - not only because they dig their damn tentacles in so deep in
> so many directions that it is impossible to neatly uninstall - not only
> because it is over-hyped and over-priced - mainly because it causes
> visible, palpable system slowdown.
>
> Plus, IMHO Norton antivirus has been compromised, it seems. Every
> single person I serviced who had Norton antivirus turned out to be
> infected with something. Usually several somethings. And most of them
> WERE keeping it updated.
You are so right. I have worked on many systems that were screwed up
because of Norton. Once I have removed Norton most system problems were
solved. The rest were viruses that got onto systems when Norton was
supposed to be protecting it. I also tell everyone to avoid Norton.
Bob
JAD
"itemyar" <y...@NOTnehalemtel.net> wrote in message
news:6MudnbJMs8zdHADZ...@neonova.net...
> Well, I retired from the Federal government about 3 years ago and they use
> it! I was in
Are you trying to give it credence or prove idiots use it?
Bob M
Maybe this is the reason so many business and gov't computers have
been hacked into recently. They have Norton on them.
Bob
Brian K
and Anti-virus versions for a number of years. The internet security
product is not one that I have experience. But any anti-virus, Trojan,
adware package is only as good as its user. If you don't schedule
complete scans with updated definition files, stuff is going to get in.
If you swap home burned CDs or floppy disks that is a vector that even
the best sentry program won't catch, especially if you override warnings
and install that game anyway 'cause it rocks.
As a firewall, I use Zone Alarm. It works in conjunction with my
anti-virus software, plus I can fine tune it. Of course even with Zone
Alarm it's possible to screw the pooch, if you don't read the
documentation or don't know what you are doing.
I've never lost data to a Speed Disk (defrag) incident. (I was running
Speed Disk and there was a power failure.) I've never had difficulty
uninstalling a Symantec product, and pre-XP I often installed to
non-default folders.
What it all boils down to is often it's PBKC (Problem Between Keyboard
and Chair). ;-)
--
________
To email me, Edit "blog" from my email address.
Brian M. Kochera
"Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once!"
View My Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~brian1951
Dave
"itemyar" <y...@NOTnehalemtel.net> wrote in message
> Was the subscription up to date?
Yes.
Dave
> viruses that other products catch.
Why would that be so dubious? When I wrote earlier that Avast! found dozens
of viruses and a few trojans, what I meant was that it found dozens of
specific kinds of viruses and a few specific kinds of trojans, also. Total
number of files infected was in the hundreds. The latest, fully updated,
version of Norton Internet Security 2006 never informed the user in any
manner that the system was infected. Thus, how would you KNOW what viruses
Symantec missed, unless you thought to scan the system with something
se? -Dave
Dave
> Beats me. I use a Mac and a hardware firewall. Problem solved. No need
> to waste my computer's processing cycles to filter out Windows malware.
Yeah, a clean computer with no software available is obviously much better
than a useful computer that happens to be infected because the "user" made
an unwise software choice. -Dave
DJT
<charlie...@users.easynews.com> wrote:
>Yeah. It's crazy. If you managed to uninstall Norton, you're doing
>better than I could. The last system I looked at, I basically told
>the person, I can't get this off, and it is the problem, so the only
>solution I know is to back up your data so I can purge your drive and
>start over. She decided to muddle through.
>
>Charlie
>
I had Norton Internet Suite on my computer. It was installed when I
got it. I upgraded to 2005 when the first subscription ran out. With
that the computer ran progressively slower. When that subscription ran
out I changed to Zonealarm Internet Suite. Just as effective and a lot
less of a drag on the computer. I can now do something else when the
virus scan runs.
I did not have much trouble uninstalling Norton. I had the program
that I downloaded from Symantec to remove Norton but did not need it.
Much happier with Zonealarm
DJT
Geoff
-g
JAD
"Geoff" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:dzlng.1896$ii....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Interesting how no one posts any of the viruses missed by NAV . . .
>
> -g
>
>
on the machines I have seen, the ones it missed, are the ones AVG caught and
eliminated..........
WooHoo2You
"Seymour Bigby-Heinz" <sb...@crock.o-stuff> wrote in message
> We use a variety because no single AV product catches everything.
> Symantec is among the few that detects the most problems accurately.
>
> Sy
You ask for evidence, where is yours? Which problems? What viruses? How
is it better? Use the IQ you value so highly.
On a anti-virus program "most" does not cut it. Especially when there are
FREE (read, FREE) programs that do a better job. Why am going to pay 50
dollars a year for Norton when someone gives me something that works better
for free, and I CAN UNINSTALL IT.
--
WooHoo2You
WooHoo2You
"Seymour Bigby-Heinz" <sb...@crock.o-stuff> wrote in message
> Excellent point. They won't post a list of what Symantec missed
> because Symantec didn't miss anything.
>
> Sy
I believe in an earlier message you stated someone was "brain-washed."
Since you are in the minority, I think it is up to you to prove you are
right, and you are not the one being brainwashed. You are the only one
spouting pro-Norton propaganda here.
--
WooHoo2You
zeez
Don Freeman wrote:
> I had a similar experience, only I could never get Norton completely
> uninstalled, I had to manually delete some of the files and there are still
> some registry entries it left behind. Peter Norton's tools used to be
> considered the pinnacle of PC diagnostic and utility tools. He should sue
> Symantic for defamation of character.
Chalk it up to another great company turned to shit, or exists in name
only
(Bell and Howell, Compaq, Packard Bell (do they even exist anymore?!),
Epson.....)
WooHoo2You
"Seymour Bigby-Heinz" <sb...@crock.o-stuff> wrote in message
> Sounds like the typical smear campaign. Which one of the competing
> product vendors are you working for?
>
> Sy
How long have you worked for Norton?
'The typical "XXX" owner, it is better because I have always used it.
However, I have tried nothing else because it is the best.'
--
WooHoo2You
WooHoo2You
"Seymour Bigby-Heinz" <sb...@crock.o-stuff> wrote in message
> People whining because they didn't read the instructions for running
> software are lame.
Install program, update program, and let it run. All the "instructions" one
needs. If it does not work after that. IT IS FAULTY!!!
--
WooHoo2You
WooHoo2You
> hacked into recently. They have Norton on them.
Like my VA records......
itemyar
Ray
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"WooHoo2You" <n...@emailforyou.com> wrote in message
news:UCqng.1994$ii....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Shawn Hirn
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
True, but my Mac is loaded with software, but no antivirus stuff. Hell,
The software I use most was pre-installed by Apple on the computer right
out of the box, and I use my Mac every day.
Shawn Hirn
"JAD" <kapa...@earthcharter.net> wrote:
> "Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:srhi-392672.0...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <Q4_mg.11099$o4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > Beats me. I use a Mac and a hardware firewall. Problem solved. No need
> > to waste my computer's processing cycles to filter out Windows malware.
>
>
> what do you do about mac malware? .
Nothing. I have never encountered any malware and I avoid such
situations by simply not opening up unexpected email attachments, web
site references, etc. without confirming what they are first. In
addition, malware on the Mac is very uncommon, so its not a big deal and
the two or three pieces of Mac malware that were found out in the wild
didn't do much, if any harm. I also back up my Mac regularly.
Shawn Hirn
Howard <sti...@email.com> wrote:
> "JAD" <kapa...@earthcharter.net> wrote in news:MVcng.10$Wz...@fe07.lga:
>
> >
> > "Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:srhi-392672.0...@news.giganews.com...
> >>
> >> Beats me. I use a Mac and a hardware firewall. Problem solved. No need
> >> to waste my computer's processing cycles to filter out Windows malware.
> >
> >
> > what do you do about mac malware? .
>
> Like most Mac drones, deny it exists I imagine.
Wrong.
Ed Medlin
> got it. I upgraded to 2005 when the first subscription ran out. With
> that the computer ran progressively slower. When that subscription ran
> out I changed to Zonealarm Internet Suite. Just as effective and a lot
> less of a drag on the computer. I can now do something else when the
> virus scan runs.
>
> I did not have much trouble uninstalling Norton. I had the program
> that I downloaded from Symantec to remove Norton but did not need it.
>
> Much happier with Zonealarm
>
> DJT
That is the main beef I have with Norton/Symantec. Their suites just hog too
many resources. If you uninstalled NIS with the uninstaller, I doubt you
uninstalled all the registry entries left behind unless you did them
manually or ran Symclean. Even Symclean leaves some behind but removes most.
Partition Magic is the only product I use from Symantec anymore.
Ed
Nil
news:1151219283.0...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> Packard Bell (do they even exist anymore?!), Epson.....)
Packard Bell, the computer brand, was never great, they were always
about the bottom of the barrel, but at least they were cheap. But no,
they don't exist any more. They were bought up in the early-to-mid '90s
but NEC, which then itself went mostly out of the PC business.
Mike T.
"Geoff" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:dzlng.1896$ii....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> -g
Well I didn't think to write any of them down at the time. But one of them
I remember was WIN32:CTX. Norton knows this one by a different name, but
somehow let it get (and stay) on the hard drive anyway. There were many
other viruses and trojans that Avast! and AVG found, that Norton Internet
Security 2006 had either not found, or ignored. But they all had such
strange names that the only way I would have remembered them was to write
them down.
But while Avast! was scanning, all I had time to do was hit the '1' key
repeatedly. I eventually got tired of constantly banging on the '1' key and
hit '2' instead (delete all). Even then, I had to constantly click OK,
because it would warn me that the file infected was in a system folder.
I only remember win32:CTX as it was one of the first viruses that was
caught, and it has a relatively short name, easier to remember.
If I think of it later (I'm not home now), I'll try to find log files in AVG
and Avast! and post the list (it's a long one) of the shit that Norton
Internet Security 2006 missed. -Dave
Mike T.
"Seymour Bigby-Heinz" <sb...@crock.o-stuff> wrote in message
news:v8vr9218c34p07ap7...@4ax.com...
>
>>Interesting how no one posts any of the viruses missed by NAV . . .
>>
>>-g
>
> because Symantec didn't miss anything.
>
> Sy
Wrong!!! I didn't post the list, as I didn't think to write them down, at
the time. As I wrote earlier, when I get home, I'll see if I can find the
logs of Avast! and AVG, and post the *long* list of shit that Norton
Internet Security 2006 missed/ignored/never found. -Dave
M Berger
manufacturer from the 1940's and 50's, which made very high
quality products.
M Berger
it was updating regularly but the updates apparently
never took effect.
HDRDTD wrote:
> He may have installed but never made sure it was kept up to date.
Mike T.
"M Berger" <ber...@shout.net> wrote in message
news:e7or6j$k4$4...@roundup.shout.net...
Norton obviously has other problems, though, even if it's kept up to date.
I was reading the description of one of the viruses that norton missed, and
according to the virus database information, it was first identified years
before Norton Internet Security 2006 was released. So obviously an update
wouldn't have helped Norton find that one. -Dave
Davy
> The tool used to update the virus definitions in Symantec's
antivirus products has a security hole that can allow hostile code to
be downloaded to PCs, according to the German hacking group
Phenoelit.
>
> LiveUpdate, the software used by Symantec's antivirus software to
automatically update virus protections when updates become available,
has flaws in both the 1.4 and 1.6 versions that allow for the attacks,
Phenoelit says. When LiveUpdate 1.4 looks for updates, it attempts to
connect to a specific server at Symantec, the group said. That
connection, however, can be hijacked using a number of Domain Name
Server attacks and rerouted to the server of the attacker's choice
For full details see-:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,65744,tk,dn101101X,00.asp
and..... http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=723
> iDEFENSE Labs has notified Symantec about a remotely exploitable
buffer overflow vulnerability in the Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
that can allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code. The
iDEFENSE Advisory says "A remote attacker can send a specially
crafted HTTP request to the administrative Scan Engine Web Wervice on
port 8004 to crash the service or execute arbitrary code."
Guess what NIS2006 still 'has' flaws... so why hasn't they been
fixed..?
I ditched NIS2005 8 months after purchase after corrupt download
files.... I repaired, repaired and re-formatted 3 times, yes I used
previous Nortons with fair success....
Suppose to be a security suite isn't it...?? Never been the same
since Symantec took over from Peter Norton.
Davy
David Maynard
>>I had Norton Internet Suite on my computer. It was installed when I
>>got it. I upgraded to 2005 when the first subscription ran out. With
>>that the computer ran progressively slower. When that subscription ran
>>out I changed to Zonealarm Internet Suite. Just as effective and a lot
>>less of a drag on the computer. I can now do something else when the
>>virus scan runs.
>>
>>I did not have much trouble uninstalling Norton. I had the program
>>that I downloaded from Symantec to remove Norton but did not need it.
>>
>>Much happier with Zonealarm
>>
>>DJT
>
>
> That is the main beef I have with Norton/Symantec. Their suites just hog too
> many resources.
I tend to agree, even though I use it.
> If you uninstalled NIS with the uninstaller, I doubt you
> uninstalled all the registry entries left behind unless you did them
> manually or ran Symclean. Even Symclean leaves some behind but removes most.
That's true of most programs. They almost all leave registry entries.
In some cases it may be from entries added during the course of operation
that the installer doesn't know about. In others it might be considered a
'feature' to save settings so they're there when you 'change your mind
again' (who knows?). In that case of NAV I suspect at least one motive is
to reduce the chance of "my 1 year subscription expired so remove and
reinstall... poof, neato, 1 year again."
usene...@the-domain-in.sig
<9Kqng.11804$o4.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
n...@emailforyou.com says...
> > Maybe this is the reason so many business and gov't computers have been
> > hacked into recently. They have Norton on them.
>
> Like my VA records......
As I understand it, the Veterans Adminstration records incident
didn't involve any "hacking," but was, rather, a physical theft
of a laptop. The perp probably didn't have any idea that the
data was more valuable than the hardware.
--
Want Freebies?
http://www.TheFreeStuffList.com/
Check The Free Stuff List
Don Freeman
<usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f0b6d8a8...@nntp.aioe.org...
> In article
> <9Kqng.11804$o4.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> n...@emailforyou.com says...
>> > Maybe this is the reason so many business and gov't computers have
>> > been
>> > hacked into recently. They have Norton on them.
>>
>> Like my VA records......
>
>
> As I understand it, the Veterans Adminstration records incident
> didn't involve any "hacking," but was, rather, a physical theft
> of a laptop.
Most of the recent ID thefts have been through stolen laptops and not some
"evil genius hacker" yet there is no public outcry over the stupidity of
putting sensitive public data on an easily transportable machine. Yet let
one teenage whiz break into any computer and the media riles up the public
with tales of hackers stealing our lives from us.
--
-Don
Ever had one of those days where you just felt like:
http://cosmoslair.com/BadDay.html ?
(Eating the elephant outside the box, one paradigm at a time)
Ken Knecht
news:44a2c495$0$96961$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>
> <usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1f0b6d8a8...@nntp.aioe.org...
>> In article
>> <9Kqng.11804$o4.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> n...@emailforyou.com says...
>>> > Maybe this is the reason so many business and gov't computers
>>> > have
>>> > been
>>> > hacked into recently. They have Norton on them.
>>>
>>> Like my VA records......
>>
>>
>> As I understand it, the Veterans Adminstration records incident
>> didn't involve any "hacking," but was, rather, a physical theft
>> of a laptop.
> .
> Most of the recent ID thefts have been through stolen laptops and not
> some "evil genius hacker" yet there is no public outcry over the
> stupidity of putting sensitive public data on an easily transportable
> machine. Yet let one teenage whiz break into any computer and the
> media riles up the public with tales of hackers stealing our lives
> from us.
>
What I will never understand is why companies do not make it a rule that
all sensitive information be encrypted, especially on servers connected
to the internet and laptops. They seem to never learn. When's the last
time you heard that stolen info was well encrypted? The VA info evidently
was not encrypted either. Every week a new data loss.
--
Untie the two knots to email me
A politician thinks of the next election;
a statesman, the next generation.
James Freeman Clarke
SpammersDie
"Ken Knecht" <kenk...@deruknot.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97F0AA0DFB...@140.99.23.22...
For the same reason that consumers would never agree to encrypting their
purchased music CD's so that the event of theft of the CD, the thief can't
fileshare the music and open it up to piracy by millions. They don't give a
shit about the rights of owner of the data on the CD, only their own
convenience. And in the VA case, you don't even own the data.
In any case, the real solution is for the credit and banking industry to
stop using SSN's as fucking passwords. 100% elimination of data compromises
is not going to happen - there are a gazillion points of failure. The only
solution is to make that data worthless.
ameijers
>
> What I will never understand is why companies do not make it a rule that
> all sensitive information be encrypted, especially on servers connected
> to the internet and laptops. They seem to never learn. When's the last
> time you heard that stolen info was well encrypted? The VA info evidently
> was not encrypted either. Every week a new data loss.
>
gonna claim the policy is enforced, however. The geek term, 'data at rest'
is supposed to be encrypted or access-locked via PKI hardware key, if
privacy act info is involved. (Much less classified, of course, where the
policies are enforced in an Alice-in-Wonderland sort of way.) And just as a
point of information, storing stuff encrypted <is> a major and expensive
PITA, especially using PKI keys with a shelf-life. Once the key dies, unless
you did the housekeeping in time, you can't get to the data. The recent
embarrassments could have been minimized if they had enforced basic
housekeeping concepts like 'least privilege' and keeping sensitive data
inside the perimeter. If teleworkers need to touch sensitive data from home,
you leave the data inside the perimeter, and they work on it over a VPN.
That way, even if the company laptop gets compromised or stolen, the volume
of sensitive data at risk is kept to a minimum. VA canned the employee
involved- big suprise- but IMHO they should also have canned a few people in
the IA shop there for allowing such sloppy procedures.
aem sends...
nobody
YMMV on that. PB's 808x's, 286's and early 386's weren't bad at all.
Their late 386's started the trend to crappiness that was fully and
totally crapola by the time of 486's. PB was supposedly the company
responsible for Intel 486SX cpus.
nobody
>
> On a anti-virus program "most" does not cut it. Especially when there are
> FREE (read, FREE) programs that do a better job. Why am going to pay 50
> dollars a year for Norton when someone gives me something that works better
> for free, and I CAN UNINSTALL IT.
>
Sounds like AVG or Avast! to me. (I'm happy with both.)
nobody
> better than I could. The last system I looked at, I basically told
> the person, I can't get this off, and it is the problem, so the only
> solution I know is to back up your data so I can purge your drive and
> start over. She decided to muddle through.
>
> Charlie
>
>
(or http://makeashorterlink.com/?N20F12B5D )
Somewhere on Symantec's site is an uninstall utilty that's *supposed* to
do all of this.
coolsti
> And how much did the helpful "mom's boyfriend" spend on that worthless
> Norton software? I don't want to know. -Dave
Several comments pop into my head:
1) Any software that becomes widely used will be more prone to being
cracked and hacked by malicious people. Norton is very popular, like
Windows, and so there are sure to be attempts to hack it.
2) Norton or any anti-virus can only recognize malicious software once
that software is known to the anti-virus application, e.g. through daily
online updates. Clearly someone who figures out how to hack Norton to
ignore future trojans and viruses can do this in the short window of time
before Norton&Co. discover it and make a patch to fix it.
3) Norton is a fine product for computer security, and I use the
anti-virus on one of my computers at home. But I hate any application that
tends to take over the operating system and make it nearly impossible for
you to interfere with it, e.g. shut it off so online updates do not
interfer with your online gaming battles. And I hate any application that
does not allow itself to be removed from your system cleanly (one of my
worst nightmares was Roxio CD burner software version 7 - never never
again!).
I don't think one should avoid Norton, but Norton should be used with
care. And alternatives exist. Less irritating ones at that. Norton&Co.
(Symantec) should also be aware that their applications are "guests" on
the hosting computer, and do not "own" the computer, and should behave
accordingly.
/Steve
Bill
coolsti wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:39:44 +0000, Dave wrote:
>
> > And how much did the helpful "mom's boyfriend" spend on that worthless
> > Norton software? I don't want to know. -Dave
>
> 1) Any software that becomes widely used will be more prone to being
> cracked and hacked by malicious people. Norton is very popular, like
> Windows, and so there are sure to be attempts to hack it.
Norton products are often available for free after rebates
(another topic), so it' svery possible that he didn't pay
anything for it other than sales tax (assuming the rebates show
up).
Also, Norton products have to be activated and come with an
activation key. I guess it's possibly (maybe even likely) that
there is a way to crack that, I think it's more likely to have
been purchased.
Bill
Jure Sah
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:39:44 +0000, Dave wrote:
>
>> And how much did the helpful "mom's boyfriend" spend on that worthless
>> Norton software? I don't want to know. -Dave
>
> Several comments pop into my head:
>
> 1) Any software that becomes widely used will be more prone to being
> cracked and hacked by malicious people. Norton is very popular, like
> Windows, and so there are sure to be attempts to hack it.
There are many other programs which may not be sold as much, since they
are free, and are far more popular than Norton and they are not nearly
as exploited as Norton AV.
> 2) Norton or any anti-virus can only recognize malicious software once
> that software is known to the anti-virus application, e.g. through daily
> online updates. Clearly someone who figures out how to hack Norton to
> ignore future trojans and viruses can do this in the short window of time
> before Norton&Co. discover it and make a patch to fix it.
One word for you: Heuristics.
--
Primary function: Coprocessor
Secondary function: Cluster commander
Pay once per lifetime webhosting:
http://farcomm-it.com/?ref=jsah
We are the paragon of humanity. You may worship us. From afar.
01010010 01100101 01110011 01101001 01100100 01100101 01101110 01110100
01000010 01000001 01010011 01001001 01000011
Jure Sah
Once been fixing my halfsister's computer from viruses. It was in 2005
and she had the Norton AV/firewall 2005 suite thingy. Regularly updated
(some of the updates I monitored myself to ensure they progress without
a problem).
She only invited me to fix the computer once it was crawling with
trojans so hard it was impossible to use. Norton was in it's standard
configuration, with daily scanning and all, so no excuses on that part.
I have been going trough my usual procedure of removing the infestation
manually, which I do always when an antivirus that a client has
installed is not removing the problematic viruses (we have Sophos AV at
work, so I'm pretty much used to AVs that might as well not be installed
at all). At that point, the Norton Firewall thingy was blocking valid
programs like hell, the programs had to be added and re-added over and
over again. And I have used every technique I know of to block the
websites that trojans downloaded themselves from, including using
Norton's own features, but Norton just kept on removing whatever it was
I did and reinstating the settings provided by the trojans.
I figured I was fighting a loosing battle, so I tried removing Norton.
The Norton programs, atho from a single software package were all over
the Add/Remove Programs menus and kept complaining about which program
to uninstall first. Finnaly I figured out that the program I was
supposed to uninstall could not be removed because of some kind of error.
I FireFoxed a little bit around the web and downloaded the Norton
removal utility. It worked, I was only a reboot away from removing this
really helpful AV program. Upon reboot there was a substantial increase
in the computer's speed. Note that at this point I had not removed the
trojans yet, but the system was still much faster than with Norton. (In
other words, Norton uses up more resources than a swarm of tojans.)
I installed AntiVir, from that German red-umbrella company (a free
antivirus program) and Lavasoft's Ad-Aware and within a few scans and
reboots, the system was as clean as new, not to mention much faster than
with Norton. Kept on going without a firewall for the few months until
my sister brought a hardware firewall / router and never had any
problems since.
Call this anecdotal evidence or not, I very much know that if a suite
that was supposed to provide all-round protection gets compromised like
this so easily, it isn't worth shit. I have never ever seen an
anti-virus / firewall package help viruses propagate and prevent the
user from installing fixes like Norton does.
Saying the government uses it doesn't help the cause. I believe the
entire Italian government got porn-infested one pretty day when a
certain scriptkiddie decided to try out his latest kit. And the
government here all uses Sophos, which isn't worth much either as far as
I've seen (get about 5 computers to clean up per 1 alert of virus
detected in the network).
Saying Norton is at all a useful piece of software is a bit like saying
"Format C:" is a good remedy for hardware problems. It takes a fair
amount of ignorance to see that as a truth.
Jure Sah
> No, I'm here too, and I like Norton, especially Norton System Works! :-)
"Norton System Works" is an oxymora.
Jure Sah
>>> Beats me. I use a Mac and a hardware firewall. Problem solved. No need
>>> to waste my computer's processing cycles to filter out Windows malware.
>> Yeah, a clean computer with no software available is obviously much better
>> than a useful computer that happens to be infected because the "user" made
>> an unwise software choice. -Dave
>
> True, but my Mac is loaded with software, but no antivirus stuff. Hell,
> The software I use most was pre-installed by Apple on the computer right
> out of the box, and I use my Mac every day.
I heard that same story from a certain Linux user. Claimed Antiviruses
were a resource hog and was equally proud about not having one on his box.
All until one day we were doing some stuff together and he copied some
files over to my own Linux server, which has an AntiVirus. I scanned his
files as they arrived, before we ran them, as I do with all programs and
found 2 or 3 Linux viruses hiding in them, all capable of installing a
root-kit once in /bin (the programs we were using needed root to run).
He never knew he had them and was spreading them anywhere he put his
programs.
I set a full system scan with immediate delete upon detection in my
crontab and never looked back again.
Linux viruses work fine on Macs, you might want to not be so confident
about your safety.
Jure Sah
> I use Symantec products currently. I have also used Norton Utilities
> and Anti-virus versions for a number of years. The internet security
> product is not one that I have experience. But any anti-virus, Trojan,
> adware package is only as good as its user. If you don't schedule
> complete scans with updated definition files, stuff is going to get in.
> If you swap home burned CDs or floppy disks that is a vector that even
> the best sentry program won't catch, especially if you override warnings
> and install that game anyway 'cause it rocks.
In other words you are saying that 2/3 of all Norton AV users are a bit
stupid.
...Well I would come to agree, since they appear to have paid for an
antivirus package that doesn't work, but seriously...
Norton AV is quite capable of screwing itself up even without external
intervention. I once had Norton AV to install on a client computer that
was sent in for hardware repair. I did a fresh install of Windows XP
SP2, partitions wiped, and Norton AV from an original disc the
computer's owner provided. I have not installed any other software or
drivers as it was getting late. I locked the screen and left the
computer connected to the Internet, running overnight, to see if it's
stable. Next morning, I get to work, Bang! it's swarming with malware,
ad-banners and porn everywhere.
Nobody else could have used it since they did not have the password. I
reformatted the computer, installing Windows XP SP2, this time leaving
out Norton AV and it worked like a charm!
Later as I was discussing this with another fellow, who happened to be
another Norton enthusiast, I heard this lamest excuse ever, which is
that every Nth installation of Norton turns into a virus to prevent
excessive piracy. Just like it was said in the old days of floppies,
that every Nth time you copy something on a floppy, it turns into a
virus to prevent piracy. BULLSHIT.
Crap software.
M Berger
has seen several cases where Norton was installed correctly,
and INDICATED that it was updating properly, yet still failed
to actually function, allowing well-known viruses to propagate.
We have not seen that with products from other publishers.
Jure Sah
> I guess you missed my post, where I mentioned that my company
> has seen several cases where Norton was installed correctly,
> and INDICATED that it was updating properly, yet still failed
> to actually function, allowing well-known viruses to propagate.
> We have not seen that with products from other publishers.
Sometimes, Norton will "successfully update", replacing it's files with
0-byte equivalents.
The Real Bev
> M Berger pravi:
>> I guess you missed my post, where I mentioned that my company
>> has seen several cases where Norton was installed correctly,
>> and INDICATED that it was updating properly, yet still failed
>> to actually function, allowing well-known viruses to propagate.
>> We have not seen that with products from other publishers.
>
> Sometimes, Norton will "successfully update", replacing it's files with
> 0-byte equivalents.
Figures.
It came sort of semi-pre-installed on my mom's new HP. Every time she
turns her machine on it demands to be fully installed and requires a YES
answer to NOT install it, which is really sneaky. Is the easiest way to
get rid of it forever via the add/remove programs stuff, or do I need to
drive some sort of digital stake through its heart?
--
Cheers,
Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Once you've provoked a few people into publicly swearing they are going
to hunt you down and kill you, the thrill wears off." -Elric of Imrryr
JAD
"The Real Bev" <bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0UVsg.35$2I...@fe02.lga...
The Real Bev
> use the norton files remover from the norton site.
Jesus, they supply their own assassin? Thanks, I'll check it out.
> "The Real Bev" <bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jure Sah wrote:
>> > M Berger pravi:
>> >> I guess you missed my post, where I mentioned that my company
>> >> has seen several cases where Norton was installed correctly,
>> >> and INDICATED that it was updating properly, yet still failed
>> >> to actually function, allowing well-known viruses to propagate.
>> >> We have not seen that with products from other publishers.
>> >
>> > Sometimes, Norton will "successfully update", replacing it's files with
>> > 0-byte equivalents.
>>
>> Figures.
>>
>> It came sort of semi-pre-installed on my mom's new HP. Every time she
>> turns her machine on it demands to be fully installed and requires a YES
>> answer to NOT install it, which is really sneaky. Is the easiest way to
>> get rid of it forever via the add/remove programs stuff, or do I need to
>> drive some sort of digital stake through its heart?
--
Cheers,
Bev
***************************************************************
When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a thumb.
The Real Bev
> JAD wrote:
>
>> use the norton files remover from the norton site.
>
> Jesus, they supply their own assassin? Thanks, I'll check it out.
OUCH! Christ, what kind of idiots choose or devise something this hard
to kill and don't even ask if you want it or not? If add/remove doesn't
handle it I think I'll just leave it alone.
Or maybe just delete its entire subdirectory...
David Maynard
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> JAD wrote:
>>
>>> use the norton files remover from the norton site.
>>
>>
>> Jesus, they supply their own assassin? Thanks, I'll check it out.
>
>
> OUCH! Christ, what kind of idiots choose or devise something this hard
> to kill
People whose program is specifically targeted by viruses to be killed,
that's who.
The Real Bev
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>> JAD wrote:
>>>
>>>> use the norton files remover from the norton site.
>>>
>>> Jesus, they supply their own assassin? Thanks, I'll check it out.
>>
>> OUCH! Christ, what kind of idiots choose or devise something this hard
>> to kill
>
> People whose program is specifically targeted by viruses to be killed,
> that's who.
I've used f-prot forever, or at least for a long time. Free. Run it
whenever you like. Download new virus definitions every couple of
days/seeks/months depending on your paranoia level. Works fine. And if
you get mad at it you can just delete its subdirectory.
Civilized.
--
Cheers,
Bev
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
If he had any brains, he'd take them out and play with them.
David Maynard
> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>>> JAD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> use the norton files remover from the norton site.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jesus, they supply their own assassin? Thanks, I'll check it out.
>>>
>>>
>>> OUCH! Christ, what kind of idiots choose or devise something this
>>> hard to kill
>
> >
>
>> People whose program is specifically targeted by viruses to be killed,
>> that's who.
>
>
> I've used f-prot forever, or at least for a long time. Free. Run it
> whenever you like. Download new virus definitions every couple of
> days/seeks/months depending on your paranoia level. Works fine. And if
> you get mad at it you can just delete its subdirectory.
>
> Civilized.
>
That's nice. However, my point still stands as I doubt there are many virus
gurus out there specifically targeting it like they do Norton.
Ed Medlin
"JAD" <kapa...@earthcharter.net> wrote in message
news:73Xsg.325$Es6...@fe06.lga...
> use the norton files remover from the norton site.
symclean is the name of it IIRC.
Ed
M Berger
a substantially worse job of protecting Windows.
David Maynard
> The target is Windows, not Norton.
The end target is windows but some viruses specifically attack Norton for
the obvious reason that if it blocks them they can't go on to their other
purpose.
> Norton just does
> a substantially worse job of protecting Windows.
Perhaps, but none of the anecdotal stories in this thread prove it.
JAD
"David Maynard" <nos...@private.net> wrote in message
news:12ba39k...@corp.supernews.com...
> M Berger wrote:
> > The target is Windows, not Norton.
>
> The end target is windows but some viruses specifically attack Norton for
> the obvious reason that if it blocks them they can't go on to their other
> purpose.
>
> > Norton just does
> > a substantially worse job of protecting Windows.
>
> Perhaps, but none of the anecdotal stories in this thread prove it.
BS Dave don't take the opposite side for the sake of argument.....that
software is trash at its best. ANYBODY in the know , knows it. Walking in 2
weeks after the thread started to take the opposite side is.... well a dead
give a way.
And being the target doesn't let norton off the hook, shit or get off the
pot..........
David Maynard
> "David Maynard" <nos...@private.net> wrote in message
> news:12ba39k...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>M Berger wrote:
>>
>>>The target is Windows, not Norton.
>>
>>The end target is windows but some viruses specifically attack Norton for
>>the obvious reason that if it blocks them they can't go on to their other
>>purpose.
>>
>>
>>> Norton just does
>>>a substantially worse job of protecting Windows.
>>
>>Perhaps, but none of the anecdotal stories in this thread prove it.
>
>
> BS Dave don't take the opposite side for the sake of argument.....that
> software is trash at its best. ANYBODY in the know , knows it. Walking in 2
> weeks after the thread started to take the opposite side is.... well a dead
> give a way.
> And being the target doesn't let norton off the hook, shit or get off the
> pot..........
I've used just about every anti-virus package out there and none are perfect.
While I wouldn't rate Norton at the top, and have my own complaints about
it, the argument it's "trash at its best" is hysterics, as well as the
claim it doesn't work.
The free AV offerings, btw, consistently rank below the 'pay for' offerings
but maybe not enough to offset being 'free'. Like everything, it depends on
the individual.
McAfee has excellent detection, if you don't mind installing their 'on your
computer' ad campaign for everything else they make along with it. The
'McAfee Security Center' is like having a miniature AOL installed where you
can't hardly spit without it telling you of other things you should get,
from them of course, and if you're the type that never fiddles with such
things they throw in some popups lest you 'miss out'.
BitDefender 9 Standard is lower cost, with excellent anti-virus detection,
but with no spyware scanner like in McAfee.
In tests, NAV's weak points seem to be in heuristics and trojan detection,
but then it is also one of the lowest in false positives.
As always, the best front line defense is the user.
ToolPackinMama
> I've used just about every anti-virus package out there and none are
> perfect.
Ditto, and agreed.
>
> While I wouldn't rate Norton at the top, and have my own complaints
> about it, the argument it's "trash at its best" is hysterics, as well as
> the claim it doesn't work.
I disagree. In my experience, Norton and McAfee are the most
unjustifiably top-heavy (Example: bloated, causing sys slowdowns), the
most annoying (Example: frequently demands user attention) generally,
and _the least effective_.
In the case of antivirus programs, you DON'T get what you pay for. IMHO.
I do like Trend Micro's PC-CILLIN, but it is not perfect, either.
JAD
> JAD wrote:
>
> > "David Maynard" <nos...@private.net> wrote in message
> > news:12ba39k...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >>M Berger wrote:
> >>
> >>>The target is Windows, not Norton.
> >>
> >>The end target is windows but some viruses specifically attack Norton
for
> >>the obvious reason that if it blocks them they can't go on to their
other
> >>purpose.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Norton just does
> >>>a substantially worse job of protecting Windows.
> >>
> >>Perhaps, but none of the anecdotal stories in this thread prove it.
> >
> >
> > BS Dave don't take the opposite side for the sake of argument.....that
> > software is trash at its best. ANYBODY in the know , knows it. Walking
in 2
> > weeks after the thread started to take the opposite side is.... well a
dead
> > give a way.
> > And being the target doesn't let norton off the hook, shit or get off
the
> > pot..........
>
> I've used just about every anti-virus package out there and none are
perfect.
you would like people to believe thaT WOULDN'T YOU?
>
> While I wouldn't rate Norton at the top, and have my own complaints about
> it, the argument it's "trash at its best" is hysterics, as well as the
> claim it doesn't work.
My Ass, hysterics are your department.
>
> The free AV offerings, btw, consistently rank below the 'pay for'
offerings
> but maybe not enough to offset being 'free'. Like everything, it depends
on
> the individual.
ranked by who YOU or the pay for anti virus makers?
The Real Bev
> I've used just about every anti-virus package out there and none are perfect.
>
> While I wouldn't rate Norton at the top, and have my own complaints about
> it, the argument it's "trash at its best" is hysterics, as well as the
> claim it doesn't work.
>
> The free AV offerings, btw, consistently rank below the 'pay for' offerings
> but maybe not enough to offset being 'free'. Like everything, it depends on
> the individual.
Except for f-prot. I guess it doesn't count because you run it in a DOS
window on demand and kills only after infestation. Big deal. People
who worry about catching viruses whenever they're on line probably don't
practice safe sex either.
--
Cheers,
Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Little Mary took her skis upon the snow to frisk.
Wasn't she a silly girl her little * ?
David Maynard
> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> I've used just about every anti-virus package out there and none are
>> perfect.
>
>
> Ditto, and agreed.
>
>>
>> While I wouldn't rate Norton at the top, and have my own complaints
>> about it, the argument it's "trash at its best" is hysterics, as well
>> as the claim it doesn't work.
>
>
> I disagree. In my experience, Norton and McAfee are the most
> unjustifiably top-heavy (Example: bloated, causing sys slowdowns), the
> most annoying (Example: frequently demands user attention) generally,
> and _the least effective_.
Depends on how ones 'measures' it and what capabilities are activated and
being used. Just as a 'for example', a scanner checking more file extension
types, and deep into compressed files, on both reads and writes is going to
take up more time and resources than one checking fewer types on only
writes. Which, btw, happens to be what I set them to on slower machines for
just that reason, and the theory that it's less likely to be there to
'read' if it doesn't first get written.
In PC World's March test of disk scanning speed the 'you pay for it' winner
was Panda at 106 seconds. It also happens to be the most expensive. Mcafee
came in at 242 seconds with NAV close by at 272 seconds. F-Secure was down
at 388 with Kaspersky at 420 and BitDefender 9 bringing up the rear at 556
seconds. BitDefender, however, was their "Best Buy" choice.
> In the case of antivirus programs, you DON'T get what you pay for. IMHO.
>
> I do like Trend Micro's PC-CILLIN, but it is not perfect, either.
If speed is the determining factor then your choice of PC-Cillin is right
up there as it came in second at 126 seconds, just a few over Panda, which
it tied with for most expensive. Both, however, got the lowest overall
rating, "good," of the 'you pay for it' group with the lowest scores in the
AV-Test zoo threats category. PC-Cillin was also the only one to score
lower than Norton with Heuristic detection of both one and two-month-old
signatures while Panda just barely managed to eke Norton out by 1 point
with one month old signatures, but lost on 2 month old, with all the others
at least twice as good.
PC World apparently didn't do a false positives test but in another battery
by av-comparatives.org Norton was the only one with no false positives and
McAfee was the only one rated "very few" for second place. Now, that might
not mean much to the experienced who can then make a judgment for
themselves but, for those less knowledgeable, false positives can be a
serious issue.
Interestingly enough, PC World felt the need to discuss the bottom end
Heuristics performance of PC-Cillin, maybe because it was their 'Best Buy'
pick for June 2004, and, according to them, the PC-Cillin folks feel that
the problem of false positives outweighs the benefit and, so, don't place
much emphasis on it. They had a similar answer for the zoo threat
performance saying those threats (in the test) have never affected their
customers (hmm).
They loved it's ease of use, however, rating it best on that score.
However, back to the original 'issue', none of them were rated "trash at
its best" or "don't work," not even Norton. In fact, they said "At their
default configurations and with up-to-date virus definitions in place, all
of the products that AV-Test evaluated were 100 percent successful at
detecting WildList viruses in real time and on demand."