Norton IS 2012 total Fail! Reviewed by Languy99

[swftech]

I am sure most of you have seen many Av reviews by Languy99. With that said, I haven't seen him review any product that failed as bad as Norton's latest product did.

I have heard from many that Norton is much improved and that is a good product now, but this review just proves to me that it is still not worth trusting. Any good AV would have alerted the minute he extracted the malware samples from the rar file. Norton did nothing until he scanned manually the folder. That tells me it wasn't even monitoring the extraction of compressed files. Then it allows a nasty rootkit to get installed and he evn loses his internet connection. If I'm running Windows, I'll continue to stick with either Comodo or Avast.

 

[illumination]

I have never trusted Norton, nor do I like it..

 

[darkelixa]

I was using Norton but i dont know what to do after watching that video

 

[eXPerience]

RE: Norton IS 2012 total Fail!

Fact is, you can always find malware that will bypass a security suite. Therefor, don't just rely on 1 test, Norton has improved a lot in my opinion, and is one of the best security suite without all the pop-ups. But as with all the normal suites, it's killable and bypassable, and with a decent virus, well, you're screwed... But that doesn't only count for Norton, that's for all security suites.

Not scanning the unzipping isn't really a security problem, as the files itself aren't active.

as a sidenote, apparently not all files in the folder where malware (see NIS installer) or the corrupted file(s). I think making a score % with those files isn't really fair, cause well... they aren't malware ^^. I hope he rethinks that in his next test.

I don't know what malware he bumped into, but it's a well written one xD.

eXp

 

[darkelixa]

Surely the behaviour blocker should have steped in and said hey this is an odd file. I know with Kaspersky you get a little popup saying hey should I run this or not

 

[ghost]

One test, one fail. Do you think you have any chance to find that or any rootkit luring in some site and disable your av? No way my friend! First of all you have to download it and run it. You have your browser set to ask you where you want to save it, don't you? One thing could be the reason that it failed....Did languy disable smart definitions? They are turned on by default. I don't know if it's a bug or not..

 

[Deleted member 178]

ALL TO CIS !!!

more seriously, this test reinforce my idea to not purchase any paid security suite (except maybe EAM and OAP.) since none are perfect or give 100% protection all the time.

@dark: i told you stay with EAM+OAP

 

[darkelixa]

Lol honestly its hard to decide between Norton, Kaspersky or Eam + OA- Eam would be great if that bug was ever fixed

 

[moonshine]

It's still too early to not to trust Symantec, It's just one test and they can still improve over time.

 

[swftech]

One test, one fail. Do you think you have any chance to find that or any rootkit luring in some site and disable your av? No way my friend! First of all you have to download it and run it. You have your browser set to ask you where you want to save it, don't you? One thing could be the reason that it failed....Did languy disable smart definitions? They are turned on by default. I don't know if it's a bug or not..

Did languy disable smart definitions? They are turned on by default.

He left the settings set to default as he always does in his reviews, so it will be the way the average user would have it after installation.

Even though this is just one review, it's a review by someone that does thousands of reviews, and as far as I've seen (And I subscribe to his Youtube channel) it's the biggest fail yet.

 

[Tom172]

This is the problem, people see it fail one test and instantly think it's a bad product. A Languy test at that, which is even less credible.

 

[jamescv7]

Surely the behaviour blocker should have steped in and said hey this is an odd file. I know with Kaspersky you get a little popup saying hey should I run this or not

Well in Sonar it will pop up that the file was known to be suspicious and automatically removed.

On the video of languy99 its like Sonar was appeared there.

 

[darkelixa]

It's still too early to not to trust Symantec, It's just one test and they can still improve over time.

Yes they can improve over time but my data and identity should never be stolen due to software

 

[swftech]

ALL TO CIS !!!

more seriously, this test reinforce my idea to not purchase any paid security suite (except maybe EAM and OAP.) since none are perfect or give 100% protection all the time.

@dark: i told you stay with EAM+OAP

I couldn't have said it better Umbrapolaris +1 for you. Nothing catches everything, but if you are a paid AV or suite, you better not fail like that ever, period.

 

[darkelixa]

Eam constantly tells me its not turned on due to a bug. You hardly feel safe

 

[moonshine]

Seriously guys, It's just one test from a less credible person. Would you untrust a proven brand through the years like Symantec? Stop these meaningless posts about NIS being a fail because we're not going anywhere. It will improve over time so get over with it.

 

[swftech]

Seriously guys, It's just one test from a less credible person. Would you untrust a proven brand through the years like Symantec? Stop these meaningless posts about NIS being a fail because we're not going anywhere. It will improve over time so get over with it.

A proven brand? I've uninstalled Norton from my clients computers for years because it has been nothing but a bloated program that gives way too many false positives, and doesn't block what needs to be blocked. The only thing it's ever proven to me is that Symantec has enough money to pay reviewers to say it's good and to be installed by default in new PC purchases just like Mcaffee. Of course you can take what you want from one single review, but to me this should have never happened, and I'll continue to steer clear of Symantec.

 

[moonshine]

FYI, When Symantec released the 2009 versions of NAV and NIS, everything was rewritten from scratch so it will operate much faster than what it used to be, And Starting with the 2010 versions, NAV and NIS greatly improved their detection and protection rates, This had been proven again with the release of 2011 versions. So tell me, What's that bloated program you're talking about? You're posting NONSENSE. And the reason why it doesn't "block what needs to be blocked" is because your customers owns an expired subscription, Turned the security software OFF and didn't updated NAV/NIS in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 178]

FYI, When Symantec released the 2009 versions of NAV and NIS, everything was rewritten from scratch so it will operate much faster than what it used to be, And Starting with the 2010 versions, NAV and NIS greatly improved their detection and protection rates, This had been proven again with the release of 2011 versions. So tell me, What's that bloated program you're talking about? You're posting NONSENSE. And the reason why it doesn't "block what needs to be blocked" is because your customers owns an expired subscription, Turned the security software OFF and didn't updated NAV/NIS in the first place.

true, i saw this case many times.

 

[illumination]

Well over half the computers i have cleaned in the last 6 months were either running Norton, McAfee or AVG.. I have seen plenty get by Norton.. It might improve protection, to tweak Norton out, as far as putting it in an Interactive Mode, but most novice users do not, and they end up infected..