App Review Norton Security 22.22.8.15

[Shadowra]

Content source

https://odysee.com/@Shadowra:f/Norton-Security-22.22.8.15:1

Hello and welcome to the Norton test!
Norton is an American antivirus, very well known to the public.
It has been offering software capable of protecting the user for years.
In this version, no change in security, but the interface has been slightly modified.
White, blue and icons have been modified.

Protection level: Norton is still formidable!
It stopped all attacks submitted!
Nothing is passed (the installer is a false positive, which I did not count and which I stopped)

Still recommendable.



RAM Usage : Low
Malware URL test : 10/10 (All blocked)
Fake crack : 1/1 (Blocked : WS.Reputation.1)
Malware Pack : Remaining 13 files out of 215.
Norton blocks all threats at launch!
A file was launched but not counted, it was a false positive that I stopped.
PC clean
Resistance to script attacks: Yes

Result :
IObit : 0
KVRT : 0

Recommand : Recommended
System Clean : Yes system clean & protected

@Kiss request

 

[Digmor Crusher]

Nice.

 

[ErzCrz]

Nice one My local Costco (UK) sells Norton for something lik £17 with VAT. Might consider giving it a whirl at some point In the meantime still randomly torturing myself with Comodo lol.
Love your work!

 

[Guilhermesene]

Yes, I am using it. It is incredibly light, very quiet, so far I have not received any offers to buy additional ones. I have set the SONAR mode (new behavior blocker) to AGGRESSIVE and the firewall for malicious applications to AGGRESSIVE as well.

I confess that I have used Bitdefender, Kaspersky and ESET for quite some time and I am quite impressed with Norton.

I bought a 2 year license of Norton 360 Premium Plus and I have nothing to complain about .

Detail: the chat support is excellent, they are very attentive and always available.

 

[Kiss]

@Shadowra Wow! Thank you so much for that, Norton is impeccable

 

[Guilhermesene]

The only thing I don't like so much about Norton is that it is highly dependent on the Internet, even the Behavioral Blocking support site says that without an Internet connection it doesn't work. From this point on, Bitdefender for me is the best because it has a high rate of offline detection, but other than that, Norton is excellent, there's nothing to complain about .

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

The only thing I don't like so much about Norton is that it is highly dependent on the Internet, even the Behavioral Blocking support site says that without an Internet connection it doesn't work. From this point on, Bitdefender for me is the best because it has a high rate of offline detection, but other than that, Norton is excellent, there's nothing to complain about .

In March AV comparatives did a malware protection test where they compared offline vs online protection:

Malware Protection Test March 2022

The Malware Protection Test March 2022 assesses program’s ability to protect a system against malicious files before, during or after execution.

www.av-comparatives.org

AV-Comparatives - Malware Protection Test March 2022

Introduction In the Malware Protection Test, malicious files are executed on the system. While in the Real-World Protection Test the vector is the web, in the Malware Protection Test the vectors can be e.g. network drives, USB or cover scenarios where the malware is already on the disk. Please...

malwaretips.com

An idea for @Shadowra to enhance his testing?

 

[Kiss]

The only thing I don't like so much about Norton is that it is highly dependent on the Internet, even the Behavioral Blocking support site says that without an Internet connection it doesn't work. From this point on, Bitdefender for me is the best because it has a high rate of offline detection, but other than that, Norton is excellent, there's nothing to complain about .

But who uses the computer these days without internet connection? And without internet it is impossible for you to be infected, unless you downloaded malware on another connected computer and put it on a pendrive to infect yours that is off

 

[likeastar20]

Good protection, but questionable privacy and nagging. Thanks for the test.

 

[Guilhermesene]

But who uses the computer these days without internet connection? And without internet it is impossible for you to be infected, unless you downloaded malware on another connected computer and put it on a pendrive to infect yours that is off

Yes, I understand what you mean. I just approached it from another point of view, obviously this only occurs in specific scenarios where there may be internet connection failure etc. clearly, for such an infection to occur the chance is minimal.

 

[Shiz]

What I didn't like was when using a miner and you exclude it. Norton still blocks it. It was very frustrating so I switched to Bitdefender free with comodo FW and let Norton expire.

 

[BigWrench]

Great test @Shadowra. I think,in my opinion, we all love to hate Norton. Myself included. We all know that it’s top shelf, but can’t admit it. I love it, except for all its fluff and pop ups. I, as well as others, do NOT care for having to set up auto pay, and give payment information just to trial. We used to get free keys from them when we beta tested, but that ship has sailed. Oh well. I’m done whining. Thanks again @Shadowra

 

[Shadowra]

In March AV comparatives did a malware protection test where they compared offline vs online protection:
View attachment 269790

Malware Protection Test March 2022

The Malware Protection Test March 2022 assesses program’s ability to protect a system against malicious files before, during or after execution.

www.av-comparatives.org

AV-Comparatives - Malware Protection Test March 2022

Introduction In the Malware Protection Test, malicious files are executed on the system. While in the Real-World Protection Test the vector is the web, in the Malware Protection Test the vectors can be e.g. network drives, USB or cover scenarios where the malware is already on the disk. Please...

malwaretips.com

An idea for @Shadowra to enhance his testing?

I must admit that I am thinking about it, because even without an Internet connection, one can unfortunately be infected.
It is enough that a PC is infected by a worm or a malware able to infect the autoruns.inf file of the key to be infected....
It is under study to include a category without connection

 

[entropism]

Good protection, but questionable privacy and nagging. Thanks for the test.

It was questionable BEFORE the Avast buyout. I'd downgrade it to "laughable" at this point.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

But who uses the computer these days without internet connection? And without internet it is impossible for you to be infected, unless you downloaded malware on another connected computer and put it on a pendrive to infect yours that is off

offline protection is still valuable when the internet connection is unstable or the AV's server is down
I do not trust the ones which highly depend on the cloud

 

[ForgottenSeer 95367]

It was questionable BEFORE the Avast buyout. I'd downgrade it to "laughable" at this point.

Norton is decent. It is right there with Bitdefender and Kaspersky, unless you think a 1% difference between them is meaningful (it is statistically insignificant in real life events). Norton will stop a lot of attacks that Microsoft Defender cannot. For example, banking trojans and other financial malware attacks.

Norton has a lot of settings that must be adjusted manually, especially the firewall, to get the most out of it. In other words, Norton must be hardened just like every other internet security suite out there.

Security software is like anything else cybersecurity. Those that have the knowledge, and can act on that knowledge, stay safe while everybody else only stays safe because of probabilities.

 

[ForgottenSeer 95367]

But who uses the computer these days without internet connection? And without internet it is impossible for you to be infected, unless you downloaded malware on another connected computer and put it on a pendrive to infect yours that is off

Use of offline infected pendrives happen every single day in south central and southeast Asia. It's almost a way of life.

 

[Guilhermesene]

Norton is decent. It is right there with Bitdefender and Kaspersky, unless you think a 1% difference between them is meaningful (it is statistically insignificant in real life events). Norton will stop a lot of attacks that Microsoft Defender cannot. For example, banking trojans and other financial malware attacks.

Norton has a lot of settings that must be adjusted manually, especially the firewall, to get the most out of it. In other words, Norton must be hardened just like every other internet security suite out there.

Security software is like anything else cybersecurity. Those that have the knowledge, and can act on that knowledge, stay safe while everybody else only stays safe because of probabilities.

Can you recommend me some adjustments in Norton's firewall? Thank you

 

[entropism]

Norton is decent. It is right there with Bitdefender and Kaspersky, unless you think a 1% difference between them is meaningful (it is statistically insignificant in real life events). Norton will stop a lot of attacks that Microsoft Defender cannot. For example, banking trojans and other financial malware attacks.

Norton has a lot of settings that must be adjusted manually, especially the firewall, to get the most out of it. In other words, Norton must be hardened just like every other internet security suite out there.

Security software is like anything else cybersecurity. Those that have the knowledge, and can act on that knowledge, stay safe while everybody else only stays safe because of probabilities.

I think you should re-read what I wrote, and what I was quoting, because your response covered none of it.

 

[Shadowra]

Norton is an excellent antivirus and that is undeniable. It is part of the podium, whether it is in my opinion or in comparison sites.

Concerning the settings, it all depends on your surfing. In this test, I did not modify them and it protected the machine well.
Afterwards, if your surfing is very risky, I would change the Sonar settings, especially against Java RATs (Java files) which are one of Norton's weaknesses. Even if it is very efficient against known malware families (like Adwind or Jrat), it can leave some traces if it is not blocked in time...
In aggressive mode, the slightest attack is blocked but can cause false positives. :/