Norton Security Suite BETA Test (MalwareDoctor)
- Thread starter MDTechVideos
- Start date
It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
- Jan 22, 2014
- 1,804
That's what i mean, u blamed others peoples who don't have brain & it's a wrong statement. I suggest t u to go search through some forums in google & know why peoples ditch it/blame it & by reading their post, i don't think they really know nothing about norton plus most of them were IT guys. Second, i said norton was resource hog in it's earlier version so why they making it light & less impact on system so nothing wrong i said. Plus man AV use paging file & hide their real usage & some AV use less RAM but still can feel impact on system. Read through carefully what i post & that's not my opinion, it's all of those norton user opinonsFirst of all read my post again, I do not blame people for ditching Norton, and the only reason i mentioned they have no brains is simple as i explained but it seems that there are more things confusing to you. So read my post again.
In regards to being a resource hog. less then 20mb
Again your opinions are fine they just do not reflect the reality. And let me say this gain:
How on earth is ANY AV going to protection you if you click YES download anyway? On top of that test reports do mention detection rates, but they are tests no more no less. The reality is pretty much different as day in day out i see brands running on client PC's that are regarded as 100% crap according to those tests YET they outperform 95% of them as they are installed on a system that has all its ABC's in check. So tests are just tests and have nothing to do with the reality.
Please i might sound rude here towards you or i even might sound disrespectful but i have really no intention to so please do not take my words personal. But i explained you everything, shown you the proof to back it up from various sources and yet you claim i am wrong?
While i told you that your personal opinion is noted yet it does not mean its true.
So beats me.... but it seems you got your ABC's pretty much mixed up here.
Cheers
Norton was used at wide range in my country during 2005 - 2010 & now it users deman is less, now blame whole country Did i mentioned about click yes or no? I explained in a good way that Norton web filter is not effective & it mostly takes help of its sonar & norton community reputation when the infected executable downloaded on system so web filter don't do it's all duty. U just started to mentioned i don't know about how norton works & started to tell me about features & so on & making this argument long. and it's ok i have no problem about ur nature hehehe
- Jan 22, 2014
- 1,804
How u know that, first tell me? and u mean the norton users who get infected in past in virtual world? I don't believe myth of real world & virtual world whatever u say, No AV detection is best .
- May 11, 2013
- 1,687
That's what i mean, u blamed others peoples who don't have brain & it's a wrong statement. I suggest t u to go search through some forums in google & know why peoples ditch it/blame it & by reading their post, i don't think they really know nothing about norton plus most of them were IT guys. Second, i said norton was resource hog in it's earlier version so why they making it light & less impact on system so nothing wrong i said. Plus man AV use paging file & hide their real usage & some AV use less RAM but still can feel impact on system. Read through carefully what i post & that's not my opinion, it's all of those norton user opinons
Did i mentioned about click yes or no? I explained in a good way that Norton web filter is not effective & it mostly takes help of its sonar & norton community reputation when the infected executable downloaded on system so web filter don't do it's all duty. U just started to mentioned i don't know about how norton works & started to tell me about features & so on & making this argument long. and it's ok i have no problem about ur nature hehehe
I stand correct i was reading you said it is a resource hog while you said it "was".
That said i do not blame people but you have to be pretty stupid & braindeath if your AV is telling you that a URL is malicious and its trying to download a file and yet you still click "Yes download anyway" considering the fact that by clicking on it you actually white list the executable for a part within the Norton protection and yet you wonder why Norton fails to protect you.
Fact is Norton did protect you and did stop the danger IF you would have followed up on the advise given by them.
I am aware of the forum posts even on Norton community itself about users complaining about problems, and yes some might be IT guys so what?
But call me ANY community related to Internet security where this is not the case.
Please point out a brand to me that has never been criticized? And yet 99% of all the forum posts regarding the issues find their origin in the user his/her own action. As has been proven so many times.
For example look at our own malware removal help section here on MT.
Just read the logs and you will see as longs do not lie that 95% is NOT a AV failing but its a USER based error who failed to "understand" and use their product properly. And yes Norton uses multiple modules to achieve a good protection as its build in such way so whats the problem if it relies on additional modules? Norton is certainly not the only one doing so...
My point here is that your lack of understanding has become painfully clear and yet you point out my nature.
I am totally cool with your opinions and i am totally cool with what you think.
I have made a solid effort explaining you how things work based on facts and yet you ignore it and reply with bias info.
And then you there to say: "i have no problem about ur nature hehehe"
Fine what ever makes you feel happy...
- Apr 3, 2014
- 1,460
I can hear a lot of time the word common sense, "if you use common sense"
Well its a good thing to use common sense but, and its a big but
we are not testing the ability of people to use common sense, we are not shrinks,
we are testing the AV capability to protect us without a common sense
stop saying common sense!
Well its a good thing to use common sense but, and its a big but
we are not testing the ability of people to use common sense, we are not shrinks,
we are testing the AV capability to protect us without a common sense
stop saying common sense!
- Jan 22, 2014
- 1,804
Really? did u read my post before? I said before
"Notron was blamed for resource hogging & many users ditch it & etc.. so why they now making it low resource hog, less impact on system."
then u showed me with a Norton screenshot saying " In regards to being a resource hog. less then 20mb"
where i mentioned 'is'? Think before what u post, i again saying that Norton was blamed for resource hog so why they now making a light version of norton seucrity (beta) which impact less in system. ROLF why u repeating common sense paragraph here? in this video Norton didn't said 'URL' is malicious, the infected exectuables was downloading easily & during download or after download Norton prompt that file is suspicious/malware. So it's not called it's url protection, it's called it download protection & it's also using it's Norton community web reputation/sonar to detect the malicious file, i saw in videos Norton did block malicious urls right in browser but not so much. So it's better if web shield block malicious webpage & blocked the page rather then let the executable download in system, it's really time consuming plus sonar sometimes act slow. I'll call it's download protection , i can do it with my IDM or any download manager too who supports virus checking. So i'm still in my point that it's url shield fails pretty much like it previous version.
and i'm aware that it's human error that's why they infect their PC, no need to tell me & i'm not lying anything. every AV is faulty but Norton failing too much. Others AV already joins in market & Norton losing it's feet. And in forums beside malware infection, people s also mentioned about slow bootup, slow startup, slow response from system & so on & i don't think it's user error. I didn't said norton to stop their multiple modules to protect user, what i stated before in this post that ' it's need more work ' means it's need more work regarding it's URL shield since i see less Norton blocking any page.
The real point is you didn't understand what i'm talking about & stretch the argument showing me it's features & blah blah so on, i was talking about it's URL shield, imao u r totally lack to understand my post & to reply me, i was not asking about it's different module of webshield, i was mentioning it's URL shield, since the executable was downloading successfully into the system, i'll call it's URL protection a failure since it's didn't block the page, it starts to acts when the executable downloaded successfully or during download, most of AV real time protection can block malicious file during download or from download if it's in it's virus database , many AV provide better download & url protection then norton for example ESET, if it failed to block URL it will scan during download or after download, that's called download protection.
again, i'm not making anything BIAS, keep ur claim in your pocket, u r not only reside with big brain ROLF, if u still didn't understand what i'm talking about i can explain it to PM, no need to hijack thread, since u started it to poking my back, criticizing me that i have no idea about how norton works. Now relax
- Apr 3, 2014
- 1,460
simpleSorry but i do not understand a word from what you just said, let me try to see if i can make something useful out of it, lets see
"You where able to get Norton working on a virtual machine that did run Windows Vista. And the user only did have 200 dollar worth of hardware?"
Ok...
What are you trying to say buddy?
he installed on VM, and it become like vista, vista has a bad name that it is very slow (not correct but..)so the good computer that he used become very slow like vista, as for 200 bucks he meant very cheap and old pc with old hardware that cost 200 is slow (again 200 dolar you can buy on ebay core 2 duo 3.3 mhz and even more thats not slow)
so pc become slow like vista with 200$ worth of hardware.
- Jan 4, 2012
- 280
True. Though there is always a common sense (or it should) if you are a human being
.
Last edited:
- May 11, 2013
- 1,687
Really? did u read my post before? I said before
"Notron was blamed for resource hogging & many users ditch it & etc.. so why they now making it low resource hog, less impact on system."
then u showed me with a Norton screenshot saying " In regards to being a resource hog. less then 20mb"
where i mentioned 'is'? Think before what u post, i again saying that Norton was blamed for resource hog so why they now making a light version of norton seucrity (beta) which impact less in system. ROLF why u repeating common sense paragraph here? in this video Norton didn't said 'URL' is malicious, the infected exectuables was downloading easily & during download or after download Norton prompt that file is suspicious/malware. So it's not called it's url protection, it's called it download protection & it's also using it's Norton community web reputation/sonar to detect the malicious file, i saw in videos Norton did block malicious urls right in browser but not so much. So it's better if web shield block malicious webpage & blocked the page rather then let the executable download in system, it's really time consuming plus sonar sometimes act slow. I'll call it's download protection , i can do it with my IDM or any download manager too who supports virus checking. So i'm still in my point that it's url shield fails pretty much like it previous version.
and i'm aware that it's human error that's why they infect their PC, no need to tell me & i'm not lying anything. every AV is faulty but Norton failing too much. Others AV already joins in market & Norton losing it's feet. And in forums beside malware infection, people s also mentioned about slow bootup, slow startup, slow response from system & so on & i don't think it's user error. I didn't said norton to stop their multiple modules to protect user, what i stated before in this post that ' it's need more work ' means it's need more work regarding it's URL shield since i see less Norton blocking any page.
The real point is you didn't understand what i'm talking about & stretch the argument showing me it's features & blah blah so on, i was talking about it's URL shield, imao u r totally lack to understand my post & to reply me, i was not asking about it's different module of webshield, i was mentioning it's URL shield, since the executable was downloading successfully into the system, i'll call it's URL protection a failure since it's didn't block the page, it starts to acts when the executable downloaded successfully or during download, most of AV real time protection can block malicious file during download or from download if it's in it's virus database , many AV provide better download & url protection then norton for example ESET, if it failed to block URL it will scan during download or after download, that's called download protection.
again, i'm not making anything BIAS, keep ur claim in your pocket, u r not only reside with big brain ROLF, if u still didn't understand what i'm talking about i can explain it to PM, no need to hijack thread, since u started it to poking my back, criticizing me that i have no idea about how norton works. Now relax
Read back what i said, if thats to hard learn English as you start to piss me off by changing my words around.
What part of this do you not understand: "I stand correct i was reading you said it is a resource hog while you said it "was"
Did that not just say that i did read it wrong? omg.
Because some people seem to lack it...
That being said URL blocking comes in many shapes and many forms depending on how the software is being developed.
And while you have mentioned some valid things in the posts you clearly do not see the bigger picture.
That said i do not expect people to be smart but i assume the can read...
Right i understand but may i point out that Norton has various ways of determine if a URL is malicious.
Let me explain:
Norton is designed to protect your network and your computer from malware and objectionable web content. Norton tests all Web addresses against a continuously updated list of malicious Websites, blocking them immediately however for this to be working correctly the URL must have been flagged and must be known as being malicious. Otherwise Norton cannot block it based upon a blacklist.
That also applies for all other AV brands who use a blacklist as a option to see if a URL is safe or not.
Another technique used is content filtering based upon "keywords" "scripts" and other known techniques that could deliver a malware directly into your browser, the problem here is that sometimes the URL itself is clean yet the web page has been injected with adware and malware sometimes even without the owners knowing. So Norton must download the physical file itself to be able to see if this file is clean or not. Obviously Norton and other brands do have some capability to read the file before downloading but in order for this to work the file must have CLEAR malware characteristics or must have as certain amount of score points that can be linked towards a behavior based reputation system which again allows your AV to deal with it.
There are also encrypted and wrapped malware that come in legit packages from a not yet malware classified page.
And the AV cannot see inside the package that you are going to download because of a certain type of compression & encryption, like some bundled software has, there is no way a AV can see that there is malware hidden in these packages UNLESS they are "known".
And if they cannot identify the package it will flag it as suspicious and in most cases it does allow you to unpack the software knowing that the realtime scanner will pick it up if malicious.
In all little scenarios Norton its called URL protection. And these are just the few obvious examples.
So the fact that Norton actually did warn about the file proves being the reasonable doubt that it did its job and did have "download insight" and the RT work together to try to catch that piece of malware.
So i am not sure what you are on about but anyone here knows that what i just told you is true.
And thats why i keep saying if you do not understand how the software works, and if you do not understand what configuration to use then you might end up in a situation where Norton will fail while with the right configuration it would have taken automatic actions.
Sure i agree a 100% this is not perfect but then again no AV brand is.
NO i am not directly attacking you i am not poking you in the back and yes i did criticize you BUT i did it in a motivated way without the aim of disrespecting you as i have said several times.
90% of your comments within this topic about Norton is "Hear & Say" and is for 90+% based on HUMAN error.
As i have pointed out like 5 times now. It has not been my intention to hijack the topic and if i did then i am sorry.
And thats all i am going to say about this... Now if i said anything wrong or anything that ain't true then i invite everyone who knows Norton as a professional to correct me.... dang almost start to sound like a Norton fanboy here lmao
Anyway long story short if you do not want to believe me or you do not want to accept my info then fine, but do not tell me i am wrong when i am stating facts here.
That said i am mister relax himself.
So no worries here.
- May 26, 2014
- 1,051
1. I think what @Koroke San is saying is that you can buy something better than Norton AntiVirus with the same amount that money and still have that common sense protection. It's a win-win, isn't it?
2. That I have to agree with. You're not having the powerful companion AV called Common Sense and using Pre-XP doesn't really help
3. Again I agree. When any AV catches something it means that you failed. It's like a high rope with a net, if you fall off your high rope and fall into the net, your training has failed (I think you actually said this somehwere).
Cheers, Chromatinfish
- Apr 3, 2014
- 1,460
if i had commen sense i wouldnt sit and scan viruses with AV.True. Though there is always a common sense (or it should) if you are a human being
just to be correct norton can kill a pc its haevy on sys
the whole debate is a bit worthless,
1- it is a beta,
2- it is in a VM (i guess) ,
3- the leftovers are just from the chinese software packed with the malware, the malware itself seems to be neutralized,
4- who care of an web filter component (hyped slowdowning useless feature) since a malware to infect you, must pass by the memory which is guarded by NIS
the test was informative to reveal what will be the final release, but for real critics about its behavior, we have to wait it.
NIS overall security and performance are far better than earlier versions, some features should not be here in my opinion (most of the tools) but business is business , if customers ask for it, give it to them.
NIS since some years focuses on prevention rather than detection, and this is the best approach.
remember that Norton is the home user branch made for Average Joe , products set to be hassle-free out of the box; in sacrifice of some degree of protection; you want more , just configure it to max and if you want true T-Rex protection , go to Symantec and endpoint versions.
now about the debate both Koroke and N.nvt made some points;
- Koroke is right when he said NIS can be replaced by other tools, free or not (this is true for every product), but here we talk about NIS and not other softs.
- he was also right about common sense (i hate this word) , but here common sense is offtopic since it is a malware test. if common sense was supposed to be used, the malware can't even be allowed to pass UAC.
- he is partially right and wrong about NIS lacking web filter; indeed NIS doesn't have a visible distinct "Web Filter" like eset or webroot , but the association of all its components act as one.
- N.nvt knows a lot about Symantec & Norton products , he use them in its job; so i didn't see any mistakes from him.
Now about people bashing:criticizing NIS:
- most of them expect things from NIS that it isn't supposed to do
- they have most of them few knwoledge about what and how a security soft is supposed to work
- their system is bloated with dozen of crap softs,with services working in realtime and when NIS (or other security soft) is installed, it is slowdowned because it has to monitor all those craps.
- some are just haters, happy clickers, etc...
1- it is a beta,
2- it is in a VM (i guess) ,
3- the leftovers are just from the chinese software packed with the malware, the malware itself seems to be neutralized,
4- who care of an web filter component (hyped slowdowning useless feature) since a malware to infect you, must pass by the memory which is guarded by NIS
the test was informative to reveal what will be the final release, but for real critics about its behavior, we have to wait it.
NIS overall security and performance are far better than earlier versions, some features should not be here in my opinion (most of the tools) but business is business , if customers ask for it, give it to them.
NIS since some years focuses on prevention rather than detection, and this is the best approach.
remember that Norton is the home user branch made for Average Joe , products set to be hassle-free out of the box; in sacrifice of some degree of protection; you want more , just configure it to max and if you want true T-Rex protection , go to Symantec and endpoint versions.
now about the debate both Koroke and N.nvt made some points;
- Koroke is right when he said NIS can be replaced by other tools, free or not (this is true for every product), but here we talk about NIS and not other softs.
- he was also right about common sense (i hate this word) , but here common sense is offtopic since it is a malware test. if common sense was supposed to be used, the malware can't even be allowed to pass UAC.
- he is partially right and wrong about NIS lacking web filter; indeed NIS doesn't have a visible distinct "Web Filter" like eset or webroot , but the association of all its components act as one.
- N.nvt knows a lot about Symantec & Norton products , he use them in its job; so i didn't see any mistakes from him.
Now about people bashing:criticizing NIS:
- most of them expect things from NIS that it isn't supposed to do
- they have most of them few knwoledge about what and how a security soft is supposed to work
- their system is bloated with dozen of crap softs,with services working in realtime and when NIS (or other security soft) is installed, it is slowdowned because it has to monitor all those craps.
- some are just haters, happy clickers, etc...
Last edited by a moderator:
- May 11, 2013
- 1,687
@Umbra Polaris
Yes you are right the test itself was informative yet it was a test on VM and as such it was nice to see but it does not carry any value (With respect) Afteral the product has yet to proof itself. So the convo itself was pointless yet informative.
I agree with Koroke that you can replace any product according to your own wishes, but thats not the point here.
The point was about the performance of Norton and its "name" as being a average product and the performance noted on the many forums.
What i do want to say about this is simple, i might come across like a Symantec fan boy which i am not as the truth is i hate them, i really do, but i cannot deny the fact that it can do things very few AV can. And in my professional opinion the only 2 brands i have seen that can do pretty much the same are Sophos and Kasperky. Sure ESET is pretty darn good as well.
Sometimes i come across as a hard ass and i might sound rude but fact is there are so many myths out there and opinions which are for the most part not even close to be true.
And being part of this community taken into account my background i can only advise and correct / educate people.
Does that mean i know everything? HELL no as here on the forum there are a few guys around that REALLY REALLY know their stuff.
I personally respect everyone and i recognize their knowledge and in some cases i even learn from it.
And thats exactly what this forum is all about: Community, Knowledge sharing, Education, Support and just being group of people who share common interest whether it is professional or amateur.
However IMO most great communities in the past went to rubble as self proclaimed opinions took their place.
And people got mis informed. That being said AV comes in many shapes and forms, and each of them have their own abilities and they all have different qualities and achievable protection and each of them have been made for a specific purpose.
And the general point of this convo was simple, Norton or any brand would fail if being mis-understood.
So i tried to correct some of that by giving valid and quality info.
If i did something wrong with that... then sorry.
- Jan 22, 2014
- 1,804
ROLF I didn't read your big a** lecture since u r still lacking to understand what i'm talking about. I'm talking about it's URL filter & not all components of it's web protection. Anyways I installed norton security beta on my system & tested it about 40 malicious URL & norton web protection missed many URL, it blocked over 20+ URLS & my PC remain infected after reboot since norton didn't warn me when i open the infected executable. Specially it didn't did great against Chinese malware. scan with malwarebytes/hitman pro found many stuff lurking in my system.Restored backup. So it's still not good at web filtering like it's 2014 version but fine though. Norton don't have a great web protection like Sophos. freeware protection like K9 with tweak settings blocked over 30+ & combination of panda url filter help to reach 37 but missed 3 urls, 1 was phishing. good thing was they didn't slow my web surfing like norton did a bit. This free products don't advertise much like Norton & did a good job. So i'm now not interested to read ur comment btw my url filtering combination is very deadly MwahahahRead back what i said, if thats to hard learn English as you start to piss me off by changing my words around.
What part of this do you not understand: "I stand correct i was reading you said it is a resource hog while you said it "was"
Did that not just say that i did read it wrong? omg.
Because some people seem to lack it...
That being said URL blocking comes in many shapes and many forms depending on how the software is being developed.
And while you have mentioned some valid things in the posts you clearly do not see the bigger picture.
That said i do not expect people to be smart but i assume the can read...
Right i understand but may i point out that Norton has various ways of determine if a URL is malicious.
Let me explain:
Norton is designed to protect your network and your computer from malware and objectionable web content. Norton tests all Web addresses against a continuously updated list of malicious Websites, blocking them immediately however for this to be working correctly the URL must have been flagged and must be known as being malicious. Otherwise Norton cannot block it based upon a blacklist.
That also applies for all other AV brands who use a blacklist as a option to see if a URL is safe or not.
Another technique used is content filtering based upon "keywords" "scripts" and other known techniques that could deliver a malware directly into your browser, the problem here is that sometimes the URL itself is clean yet the web page has been injected with adware and malware sometimes even without the owners knowing. So Norton must download the physical file itself to be able to see if this file is clean or not. Obviously Norton and other brands do have some capability to read the file before downloading but in order for this to work the file must have CLEAR malware characteristics or must have as certain amount of score points that can be linked towards a behavior based reputation system which again allows your AV to deal with it.
There are also encrypted and wrapped malware that come in legit packages from a not yet malware classified page.
And the AV cannot see inside the package that you are going to download because of a certain type of compression & encryption, like some bundled software has, there is no way a AV can see that there is malware hidden in these packages UNLESS they are "known".
And if they cannot identify the package it will flag it as suspicious and in most cases it does allow you to unpack the software knowing that the realtime scanner will pick it up if malicious.
In all little scenarios Norton its called URL protection. And these are just the few obvious examples.
So the fact that Norton actually did warn about the file proves being the reasonable doubt that it did its job and did have "download insight" and the RT work together to try to catch that piece of malware.
So i am not sure what you are on about but anyone here knows that what i just told you is true.
And thats why i keep saying if you do not understand how the software works, and if you do not understand what configuration to use then you might end up in a situation where Norton will fail while with the right configuration it would have taken automatic actions.
Sure i agree a 100% this is not perfect but then again no AV brand is.
NO i am not directly attacking you i am not poking you in the back and yes i did criticize you BUT i did it in a motivated way without the aim of disrespecting you as i have said several times.
90% of your comments within this topic about Norton is "Hear & Say" and is for 90+% based on HUMAN error.
As i have pointed out like 5 times now. It has not been my intention to hijack the topic and if i did then i am sorry.
And thats all i am going to say about this... Now if i said anything wrong or anything that ain't true then i invite everyone who knows Norton as a professional to correct me.... dang almost start to sound like a Norton fanboy here lmao
Anyway long story short if you do not want to believe me or you do not want to accept my info then fine, but do not tell me i am wrong when i am stating facts here.
That said i am mister relax himself.
So no worries here.
- Jan 22, 2014
- 1,804
I was only testing Norton url protection capability so no need to interfere UAC in this but my PC is patched & every thing is fine except didn't have any java installed.
- May 11, 2013
- 1,687
Boy o boy you are getting delusional here...
I was thinking we did have this conversation behind us but yet you continue.
I say this one more time URL filtering has many ways and Norton has its own way as i have explained and while not perfect it works and works good specially if you take into account what i have said and what Umbra has said.
And one of its filters used by Norton will allow some exe files to be executed in order to have RTM kick in and take it from there.
Yet you still do not understand it. And yet you give me crap and being personal again.
So smarty pans let me ask you again 3 questions:
1 Did you allow the file to be downloaded while Norton advised you that it might be infected?
2 Did you execute the file by hand ones downloaded?
3 Did you allow UAC to have the file executed in the first place?
Thats going to be a 3x YES.
So you rendered Norton ineffective to protect you as i explained you that some malware come in legit lookalike executables and CANNOT be scanned from the outside due to encryption / compression methods so unless the unique signature of the file is known NO av in the world would block it. Yet some of them due the absent of verification will flag it as POSSIBLE suspicious till proven otherwise which will trigger RTM to kick in.
Norton browser addons block malicious URLs whereas scanning of contents of web pages is done by Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) and RTM
IPS can be tested by visiting this page meant to test Kaspersky web av heuristics: -www.kaspersky.com/test/jim.htm- Norton will block this page
And again as this topic is going to be heading into the direction of a flame war / community rule breaker i invite ANYONE to this conversation who has REAL knowledge about how stuff works. As anyone of them can tell you exactly the same thing i told you.
Now while you did make a few valid points in your posts which i recognize, the rest of the stuff is just "HEAR and SAY" without having ANY real scenario basis. Its bias, its wrong information and as such total BS.
I asked you to proof me wrong 3 times now, while i have given you first class verifiable info... so let me ask you again:
1 Did you allow the file to be downloaded while Norton advised you that it might be infected?
2 Did you execute the file by hand ones downloaded?
3 Did you allow UAC to have the file executed in the first place?
So yes your web filtering is VERY deadly to any healthy PC if you show such lack of basic understanding.
- Jan 22, 2014
- 1,804
1) Nope, Norton didn't gave me any single warn which it missed, so it run easily in my system & norton even said it's safe which is not actually a safe file.
2)Yup i executed by myself, since i didn't get any warning from norton that it's suspicious even during i run/install it.
3) No need to allow UAC since it will add another layer of protection, i'm only testing Norton url filtering protection to see it's capabilities , i was not testing UAC since UAC also need common sense to allow or deny . No common sense test here. I said tested norton url protection, is it clear now?
Don't always think Norton will block 100 out of 100. rest wut u said ignored
I don't give a rat arse about ur opinion, ur stuff wut u mocking & stalking here to me, is completely BS. I said before Norton don't have any good url protection so why it's use different modules to protect against web threat. Now keep coming, u really boring me xD
Last edited:
- May 11, 2013
- 1,687
1) Nope, Norton didn't gave me any single warn which it missed, so it run easily in my system & norton even said it's safe which is not actually a safe file.
2)Yup i executed by myself, since i didn't get any warning from norton that it's suspicious even during i run/install it.
3) No need to allow UAC since it will add another layer of protection, i'm only testing Norton url filtering protection to see it's capabilities , i was not testing UAC since UAC also need common sense to allow or deny . No common sense test here. I said tested norton url protection, is it clear now?
Don't alwas think Norton will block 100 out of 100. rest wut u said ignored
I don't give a rat arse about ur opinion, ur stuff wut u mocking & stalking here to me, is completely BS. I said before Norton don't have any good url protection so why it's use different modules to protect against web threat. Now keep coming, u really boring me xD
Hmm funny... your own words contradict your previous words in your previous posts.. great work...
If you keep this up then we eventually end up talking about wakkydudda antivirus. lol.
You might wanna check back your story before you make a comment.
But never mind... you seem to forget still that Norton does not rely on just a simple blacklist principal.
ahh just leave it... i am not going to spend any more time with you here.
Last edited by a moderator:
many people fails to understand that EVERY antiviruses are designed to backup and work WITH Windows own security mechanisms not replace them (unless purposely designed for), if AVs are supposed to replace a security mechanism as UAC; they will override it or disable it by default, as they do with Windows Firewall/Defender.
if you let a malware pass UAC or Smartscreen by clicking "yes" knowing the file is unknown, you just defeated the whole purpose an AV was made for... so basically it is a user fault and responsibility not the AV.
Remember : AV are made to backup (not replace) YOU.
"don't blame the police if you are a hot chick wandering in sexy bikini in a dangerous and infamous neighborhood and get raped."
Sure, the analogy is quite hard but you get the idea.
Just find a malware that bypass all Windows mechanisms without alerting the user by any way , then let see if the installed AV (properly configured) catch it, if No , then you have my full support to say "it failed"
But if you were alerted, allowed it , get infected and still complain against your AV, then i will say :
"It is YOUR fault , you damn fool , go get some skills and learn your damn place before opening your god damn mouth !"
(this sentence above applies and was applied by me to some harsh users, i met; no one focused here )
thanks
if you let a malware pass UAC or Smartscreen by clicking "yes" knowing the file is unknown, you just defeated the whole purpose an AV was made for... so basically it is a user fault and responsibility not the AV.
Remember : AV are made to backup (not replace) YOU.
"don't blame the police if you are a hot chick wandering in sexy bikini in a dangerous and infamous neighborhood and get raped."
Sure, the analogy is quite hard but you get the idea.
Just find a malware that bypass all Windows mechanisms without alerting the user by any way , then let see if the installed AV (properly configured) catch it, if No , then you have my full support to say "it failed"
But if you were alerted, allowed it , get infected and still complain against your AV, then i will say :
"It is YOUR fault , you damn fool , go get some skills and learn your damn place before opening your god damn mouth !"
(this sentence above applies and was applied by me to some harsh users, i met; no one focused here
)thanks
Similar threads
