Hi!
I'm a longtime user of Norton and I am pretty happy with the product.
My subscription expires in a month from now and I'm wondering whether or not I should renew the subscription or just switch to Windows Defender/BitDefender/Kaspersky.
One thing I don't like about Norton is that the firewall isn't as advanced as other AVs, I can't block whole folders and subfolders, I need to add a separate rule for each executeable I want to configure and there's no way to add multiple executeables to the same rule.
Other than the firewall, I like everything about Norton but am not sure if it's the best choice out there and if I should even be paying for an AV these days.
 

Umbra

Level 25
Verified
If you are happy then stick with Norton...or give Kaspersky a trial run and see if it works for you. :)
I have to agree with venustus if your comfotrtable with Norton stick with it their a good AV
+1, not saying the need of a software firewall is overrated.

Remember the original purpose of a firewall is to block unwanted inbound connections, not block outbound ones which are supposed to be trusted since the program is present on your system. Privacy concerns have nothing to do with firewalls.
Software firewalls were made when we didn't had NAT routers and were just using a 56k connection directly via a network card.

Now with modern routers, the chance of a home user being directly hacked via port scan and intrusions is way improbable.
Outbound monitoring is not a real security feature, just a convenience one, despite what 3rd vendors want you to believe...if their solutions would be effective, the malware would be caught before even calling home and triggering any outbound alert.
 

elquenunca

Level 3
Hi!
I'm a longtime user of Norton and I am pretty happy with the product.
My subscription expires in a month from now and I'm wondering whether or not I should renew the subscription or just switch to Windows Defender/BitDefender/Kaspersky.
One thing I don't like about Norton is that the firewall isn't as advanced as other AVs, I can't block whole folders and subfolders, I need to add a separate rule for each executeable I want to configure and there's no way to add multiple executeables to the same rule.
Other than the firewall, I like everything about Norton but am not sure if it's the best choice out there and if I should even be paying for an AV these days.
less Norton you can install the one you want I recommend eset or kaspersky
 

Local Host

Level 19
Verified
+1, not saying the need of a software firewall is overrated.

Remember the original purpose of a firewall is to block unwanted inbound connections, not block outbound ones which are supposed to be trusted since the program is present on your system. Privacy concerns have nothing to do with firewalls.
Software firewalls were made when we didn't had NAT routers and were just using a 56k connection directly via a network card.

Now with modern routers, the chance of a home user being directly hacked via port scan and intrusions is way improbable.
Outbound monitoring is not a real security feature, just a convenience one, despite what 3rd vendors want you to believe...if their solutions would be effective, the malware would be caught before even calling home and triggering any outbound alert.
Keyloggers disagree, and so do I.

Especially when it's extremely easy to create keyloggers undetected by AVs (on Linux it can be done in less than 2 min.).
 

Umbra

Level 25
Verified
Keyloggers disagree, and so do I.
Sure if you let them run... If you have a proper security strategy, they won't even be able to run in the first place, so there is no need of outbound monitoring.
Why MS never bothered to create a outbound monitoring "a la WFC" while they made an inbound one? Because the logic behind it is that you aren't supposed to run or install untrusted stuff. And if you do, the user has to be sure it is clean or at least have a way to flag malware.
And let say you have a connection monitor, 90% of the time the users will allow the outbound connection, especially if the malware has a familiar name similar to a windows process or installed program. I don't even talk about abusing a legit process to call home...

Especially when it's extremely easy to create keyloggers undetected by AVs (on Linux it can be done in less than 2 min.).
It doesn't matter. A decent AV should have a default-deny component, so supposed to block any FUD keyloggers, if not it is just trash.
Not saying a seriously made keyloggers will defeat a Firewall . So again the need outbound monitoring is limited.

Security in our time requires safe habits coupled with default-deny and knowledge to how use it. Once mastered, the risks of infection become insignificant.

-This is The Way -
 
Last edited:

Mahesh Sudula

Level 16
Verified
Malware Tester
No matter what any AV company says.. User should and always follow safe browsing habits.
Secondly.. Paid AV's (exempt those who use third party engines and re brand) have an unmatch quality right from toe to head across all sections.
Kaspersky, Norton, G data are my 👌