Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MacDefender" data-source="post: 841070" data-attributes="member: 83059">Norton seems fine to me — but lately I find that it is so geared for “set it and forget it” and low FP’s that it doesn’t cater to those of us who are willing to deal with more FP’s for better protection.SONAR is good but the BB aspect doesn’t seem to be very active anymore. SONAR is still great as basically a cloud based reputation scanner but the BB is hard to trip by homemade ransomware and startup item simulators.Norton’s firewall and IPS modules are fairly commendable for being low FP and being able to offer protection but I think the value is debatable. These components are more likely to slow down your networking especially if you have multigig Ethernet.But it’s not really fair to compare to McAfee. Norton’s signatures are top notch. McAfee checks off a lot of the features but the performance of each one of them is lackluster at best.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MacDefender, post: 841070, member: 83059"] Norton seems fine to me — but lately I find that it is so geared for “set it and forget it” and low FP’s that it doesn’t cater to those of us who are willing to deal with more FP’s for better protection. SONAR is good but the BB aspect doesn’t seem to be very active anymore. SONAR is still great as basically a cloud based reputation scanner but the BB is hard to trip by homemade ransomware and startup item simulators. Norton’s firewall and IPS modules are fairly commendable for being low FP and being able to offer protection but I think the value is debatable. These components are more likely to slow down your networking especially if you have multigig Ethernet. But it’s not really fair to compare to McAfee. Norton’s signatures are top notch. McAfee checks off a lot of the features but the performance of each one of them is lackluster at best. [/QUOTE]

Verification