Norton Internet Security 2013

[Malware Security]

See Attachment for more details!!!

It wont let be do word attachment, so its in adobe attachment!

 

[imsoadude]

Wow, surprising results from norton, thanks (also like the pdf since it opened in browser)

 

[Malware Security]

Wow, surprising results from norton, thanks (also like the pdf since it opened in browser)

Your Welcome, and i dont know surprising results because if you look at other reviews its not that good!

and i guess ill do pdf for now on!lol

 

[jamescv7]

NIS does really have weak points from detection and prevention status, which depends from Reputation and Auto Protect came as a challenge on using signatures.

Improving Auto-Protect is really a must than other features provided.

 

[Ink]

Good one, except rating 2 stars based on poor detection. I can't buy your review. There are other issues that make Norton a less-liked product, but not due to poor detection rates on a single sample pack.

Thanks.

 

[3link9]

I'll point out a few flaws in this review,
It doesn't show Norton's Prevention capabilities from executing files (ex. SONAR/File Rep)
System Response, and You shouldn't give the product a downright 2 stars because of a malware pack without looking at other things.

 

[Ink]

It's quite clear this review is biased: "Well let’s see here, I don’t like the product and I never did because they
have been slacking." -quote from PDF.

 

[Malware Security]

It's quite clear this review is biased: "Well let’s see here, I don’t like the product and I never did because they
have been slacking." -quote from PDF.

I edited my comment, according to my 5 star rule the i have posted below this comment, norton gets a 3 out of 5 stars!
It had bad detection = 1 star
bad on behavioral blocking = 1 star

Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[Malware Security]

For now on, each star will mean a thing, for example, 1 star is detection, 1 star is web blocking(48 or lower web links out of 60; 80%), 1 star is high ram usage, 1 star is user friendly( if its complicated to use), and 1 star is behavorial blocking, equalling 5 stars total. so now antivirus's will be based on those stars! And if i give lower then 5 stars, i will state what the missing stars are!

Thanks guys for pointing that out for me!

 

[Malware Security]

I'll point out a few flaws in this review,
It doesn't show Norton's Prevention capabilities from executing files (ex. SONAR/File Rep)
System Response, and You shouldn't give the product a downright 2 stars because of a malware pack without looking at other things.

I edited my comment, according to my 5 star rule the i have posted below this comment, norton gets a 3 out of 5 stars!
It had bad detection = 1 star
bad on behavioral blocking = 1 star

Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[Littlebits]

I would never rate any security product on how it detects zero-day threats since all will fail to do a decent job.

Zero-day threats are just something to user must learn how to avoid.
Most are quite obvious to users who pay attention and easy to avoid since they are usually distributed by fake alert websites.

Norton does a pretty good job detecting fake alert and phishing sites and so does IE's SmartScreen, Google Safe Browsing on Google Chrome and Firefox. I'm sure the results would have been much different if these features were used.

The main thing that I don't like about Norton is the File Rep causes way too many false positives. Before they added File Rep the false positives were at a minimum.

But still I believe Norton deserves at least 4 stars.

Thanks.

 

[Malware Security]

I would never rate any security product on how it detects zero-day threats since all will fail to do a decent job.

Zero-day threats are just something to user must learn how to avoid.
Most are quite obvious to users who pay attention and easy to avoid since they are usually distributed by fake alert websites.

Norton does a pretty good job detecting fake alert and phishing sites and so does IE's SmartScreen, Google Safe Browsing on Google Chrome and Firefox. I'm sure the results would have been much different if these features were used.

The main thing that I don't like about Norton is the File Rep causes way too many false positives. Before they added File Rep the false positives were at a minimum.

But still I believe Norton deserves at least 4 stars.

Thanks.

U got to count the zero days stuff thats the whole point of antivirus, check every review on youtube and there all zero day stuff, even all my reviews for years has had antivirus really good on zero days stuff, but some not so good!

 

[spywar]

I would never rate any security product on how it detects zero-day threats since all will fail to do a decent job.

Zero-day threats are just something to user must learn how to avoid.
Most are quite obvious to users who pay attention and easy to avoid since they are usually distributed by fake alert websites.

Norton does a pretty good job detecting fake alert and phishing sites and so does IE's SmartScreen, Google Safe Browsing on Google Chrome and Firefox. I'm sure the results would have been much different if these features were used.

The main thing that I don't like about Norton is the File Rep causes way too many false positives. Before they added File Rep the false positives were at a minimum.

But still I believe Norton deserves at least 4 stars.

Thanks.

Norton without its FileRep ? Man without its mind ?

 

[Littlebits]

I would never rate any security product on how it detects zero-day threats since all will fail to do a decent job.

Zero-day threats are just something to user must learn how to avoid.
Most are quite obvious to users who pay attention and easy to avoid since they are usually distributed by fake alert websites.

Norton does a pretty good job detecting fake alert and phishing sites and so does IE's SmartScreen, Google Safe Browsing on Google Chrome and Firefox. I'm sure the results would have been much different if these features were used.

The main thing that I don't like about Norton is the File Rep causes way too many false positives. Before they added File Rep the false positives were at a minimum.

But still I believe Norton deserves at least 4 stars.

Thanks.

U got to count the zero days stuff thats the whole point of antivirus, check every review on youtube and there all zero day stuff, even all my reviews for years has had antivirus really good on zero days stuff, but some not so good!

I will have to disagree with you, the whole point of having an antivirus is to protect you against the widespread and current threats users are most likely to get along with your own knowledge on how to secure your system. We all know how bad AV detection of zero-day malware is, it has been proven many times. It is completely impossible for any AV to detect every single zero-day malware. Let's say for example novice users, you can give them the AV with the highest detection rate according to reviews and tests, have all features enabled and updated. It probably will only take them a few minutes to have an active infection on their system if not several infections because they don't watch their actions and depend on the AV software to do everything. I know because some of my customers who don't want to learn can have several infection within an hour after I completely cleaned up their system for them. It doesn't make a difference which AV they are using.

But users who do pay attention and want to learn can use a simple AV like MSE + UAC and never get infections.

So the end results are always the same for novice users no matter what AV they use, they will always get infections. There is no hope for them until they want to learn and change their habits.

Most testing sites and user reviews ignore these simple facts.
Another thing to consider, Windows default security will block many of these threats. UAC for example will block any executable file if the user is paying attention and chooses to deny on the prompt. Windows Update patches will block and remove many threats. There is no telling how many malware samples that are no longer effective because of Windows Update patches. SmartScreen filter will block all executable files not digitally signed by default, the user must choose to ignore the warning before proceeding.

Zero-day protection is just not important for users who watch their actions since they can be easily avoided and blocked by Windows default security features, in return is is not important for those novice users who don't pay attention either since all AV's are poor at detecting zero-day malware. What if the AV detected like 98% of the malware still the user is infected because just single one was not detected. I don't get why testing sites and users would test something that they already should know is going to fail in the end. When Windows prompts you that the file is not digitally signed that is your first indication that it maybe infected, but in user reviews they choose to run them anyway I just don't understand the logic.

Thanks.

 

[Malware Security]

I would never rate any security product on how it detects zero-day threats since all will fail to do a decent job.

Zero-day threats are just something to user must learn how to avoid.
Most are quite obvious to users who pay attention and easy to avoid since they are usually distributed by fake alert websites.

Norton does a pretty good job detecting fake alert and phishing sites and so does IE's SmartScreen, Google Safe Browsing on Google Chrome and Firefox. I'm sure the results would have been much different if these features were used.

The main thing that I don't like about Norton is the File Rep causes way too many false positives. Before they added File Rep the false positives were at a minimum.

But still I believe Norton deserves at least 4 stars.

Thanks.

Norton without its FileRep ? Man without its mind ?

Im sorry, but i disable all that stuff because i want to know how an antivirus detects things because i know that smart screen and all that stuff would make the results different. I would like to see just the antivirus results!

 

[Malware Security]

Im sorry, but since i get my web links at malcode and malware clean mx, what they have as todays links is the ones i use! since theres a lot of av's out there that detects zero day links, then i dont see why i should give norton 1 or 2 day old links. and plus, i did not lower norton star for missing zero day links bc it got a 50/60, so that passes 48/60, that means it gets its star for web links!
it lost a star in behavioral blocking since the missed links opened without a problem and it lost another star for malware pack that was 2 days old. if virus total says the web links are all caught by bunch of antivirus, then the links are bad and if virus total says it has a low rating on a web link then i delete them!

 

[Ink]

Do you mean AV's detecting the malicious downloads or the URLs being flagged as dangerous?

Norton uses Smart Definitions, and on default settings this is turned on, which prevents the user needing to download the whole 100-160mb virus database. Smart Definitions keep the current signatures.

 

[Malware Security]

Do you mean AV's detecting the malicious downloads or the URLs being flagged as dangerous?

Norton uses Smart Definitions, and on default settings this is turned on, which prevents the user needing to download the whole 100-160mb virus database. Smart Definitions keep the current signatures.

I check for both in virus total!

 

[3link9]

I would never rate any security product on how it detects zero-day threats since all will fail to do a decent job.

Zero-day threats are just something to user must learn how to avoid.
Most are quite obvious to users who pay attention and easy to avoid since they are usually distributed by fake alert websites.

Norton does a pretty good job detecting fake alert and phishing sites and so does IE's SmartScreen, Google Safe Browsing on Google Chrome and Firefox. I'm sure the results would have been much different if these features were used.

The main thing that I don't like about Norton is the File Rep causes way too many false positives. Before they added File Rep the false positives were at a minimum.

But still I believe Norton deserves at least 4 stars.

Thanks.

Norton without its FileRep ? Man without its mind ?

Im sorry, but i disable all that stuff because i want to know how an antivirus detects things because i know that smart screen and all that stuff would make the results different. I would like to see just the antivirus results!

But isn't that the point?
A point of a review is to test a product with all of its features. Not doing it Half-Assed.

 

[Malware Security]

I would never rate any security product on how it detects zero-day threats since all will fail to do a decent job.

Zero-day threats are just something to user must learn how to avoid.
Most are quite obvious to users who pay attention and easy to avoid since they are usually distributed by fake alert websites.

Norton does a pretty good job detecting fake alert and phishing sites and so does IE's SmartScreen, Google Safe Browsing on Google Chrome and Firefox. I'm sure the results would have been much different if these features were used.

The main thing that I don't like about Norton is the File Rep causes way too many false positives. Before they added File Rep the false positives were at a minimum.

But still I believe Norton deserves at least 4 stars.

Thanks.

Norton without its FileRep ? Man without its mind ?

Im sorry, but i disable all that stuff because i want to know how an antivirus detects things because i know that smart screen and all that stuff would make the results different. I would like to see just the antivirus results!

But isn't that the point?
A point of a review is to test a product with all of its features. Not doing it Half-Assed.

Look, i did not disable nothing in norton, everything is default, i dont give a damn bout smart screen on internet explorer, if im paying "CASH" for an antivirus, i want to know if the antivirus is good. If i have smart screen and all that crap turned on on internet explorer or google chrome and thats been protecting me, then why the hell do i need to pay for norton when i can just get a free antivirus! Basically what im saying is, if i spend money on antivirus, i want to use just that, unless it has shitty web blocking then i would turn on smart screen and all that crap. But why the hell would i pay for something and turn on smart screen and thats doing all the work, what was the point of buying antivirus when i can get a free one!
I dont mean to get all on ur face bc lets face it, its an antivirus, i did not steal from u, if u dont like my reviews then i dont know wat to say besides i lost a reader!