Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
Norton Security Suite BETA Test (MalwareDoctor)
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Koroke San" data-source="post: 232361" data-attributes="member: 18344"><p>Really? did u read my post before? I said before</p><p>"Notron <strong>was </strong>blamed for resource hogging & many users ditch it & etc.. so why they now making it low resource hog, less impact on system."</p><p>then u showed me with a Norton screenshot saying " In regards to being a resource hog. less then 20mb"</p><p>where i mentioned 'is'? Think before what u post, <strong>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. </strong>ROLF why u repeating common sense paragraph here? in this video Norton didn't said <strong>'URL' </strong>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite116" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Koroke San, post: 232361, member: 18344"] Really? did u read my post before? I said before "Notron [B]was [/B]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, [B]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. [/B]ROLF why u repeating common sense paragraph here? in this video Norton didn't said [B]'URL' [/B]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 :D [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top