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="Nico@FMA" data-source="post: 232785" data-attributes="member: 8154"><p>Read back what i said, if thats to hard learn English as you start to piss me off by changing my words around.</p><p>What part of this do you not understand: "<em>I stand correct i was reading you said it is a resource hog while you said it "was"</em></p><p>Did that not just say that i did read it wrong? omg.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Because some people seem to lack it... <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite110" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>That being said URL blocking comes in many shapes and many forms depending on how the software is being developed.</p><p>And while you have mentioned some valid things in the posts you clearly do not see the bigger picture.</p><p>That said i do not expect people to be smart but i assume the can read...</p><p></p><p></p><p>Right i understand but may i point out that Norton has various ways of determine if a URL is malicious.</p><p>Let me explain:</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>That also applies for all other AV brands who use a blacklist as a option to see if a URL is safe or not.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>There are also encrypted and wrapped malware that come in legit packages from a not yet malware classified page.</p><p>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".</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>In all little scenarios Norton its called URL protection. And these are just the few obvious examples.</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>So i am not sure what you are on about but anyone here knows that what i just told you is true.</p><p>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.</p><p>Sure i agree a 100% this is not perfect but then again no AV brand is.</p><p></p><p> 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.</p><p></p><p>90% of your comments within this topic about Norton is "Hear & Say" and is for 90+% based on HUMAN error.</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>That said i am mister relax himself. </p><p>So no worries here.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite114" alt=":cool:" title="Cool :cool:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":cool:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Nico@FMA, post: 232785, member: 8154"] 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]I stand correct i was reading you said it is a resource hog while you said it "was"[/I] 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.:cool: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top