Advice Request Norton Security - Web Guard: Is it any good?

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

yea well when you're using BD sigs, you better have a dedicated team doing sigs for yourself else your AV will have to handle a lot of stuff dynamically.

I agree with this statement, BD sigs are largely the slowest, least reactionary signatures out there from what I have seen.

And so who was one of the first AV's , Norton, right ? they have unlimited funds , right? what I am gearing here is that they are now scum bags? as far as I know they make many other things besides an AV. Imaging software, remote connect software ect ect. Even though I was one of their first beta testers back in the 90's I would not down talk them for their AV solution alone. while beta testing their products, they always sent a shiny new box for free of their software and sometimes items like a shiny new letter opener.

Symantec broke off their AV division to a distinct, individual unit. They are no longer associated with other products. Also during that process they sold off other assets to focus on security.

Symantec to split into security and storage software companies

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

As for heaviness, it varies depending on machine. But on Mid to Higher level machines I test on I have a pretty good handle on the weight of products.

Norton is so lightweight that after installing it, when it disables Windows Defender the machine feels totally refreshed and snappy. It's incredible how light it is.

Someone brings up a point.. Every AV has bugs and annoyances. Nothing new there. G Data is pretty light now though!

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

RAM ist not just a sign for to be heavy...SSD/HDD, CPU, WIN Version, OS Environment, etc....so much factors

Also don't forget AV throughput. For example Dr. Web, even WITHOUT the firewall module cannot function on a 1000/1000Mbps machine, the AV throttles file/system activity down to around 425Mbps.

Most AV programs aren't sufficiently optimized for SSD's much less NVME/m.2 drives. I have 4,000MB/s+ drives in my computers, and most AV's are lucky to even read/write beyond 70MB/s. Talk about frustrating.. Cleanup tools are even worse, most don't function past 30MB/s. Bit Defenders junk firewall until last year throttled everything to 125Mbps, but they've improved it this year, but it will never get you past 500Mbps.

 

[francis de lorraine]

Also don't forget AV throughput. For example Dr. Web, even WITHOUT the firewall module cannot function on a 1000/1000Mbps machine, the AV throttles file/system activity down to around 425Mbps.

Most AV programs aren't sufficiently optimized for SSD's much less NVME/m.2 drives. I have 4,000MB/s+ drives in my computers, and most AV's are lucky to even read/write beyond 70MB/s. Talk about frustrating.. Cleanup tools are even worse, most don't function past 30MB/s. Bit Defenders junk firewall until last year throttled everything to 125Mbps, but they've improved it this year, but it will never get you past 500Mbps.

Hi but gdata has more than 600 mbps it's too much I find

 

[mekelek]

Hi but gdata has more than 600 mbps it's too much I find

GData can handle 1GBit too, i don't think it has any limit.

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

GData can handle 1GBit too, i don't think it has any limit.

It doesn't. I've personally verified it has no throughput limitation up to 1000Mbps. Beyond that? I don't know, I'm not paying $200 a month for a 2000/2000Mbps connection here.

 

[Deleted member 65228]

Avira, I tried their new privacy tool and what gets installed? That stupid perpetually running useless 'launcher' application. Removed that trash in 2 seconds.

LOL that is hilarious. Who on earth came up with the idea to put the Launcher into this program?

"I will use Avira because their Launcher is great!" said no one ever

They ruined their new product before it even started

 

[mekelek]

LOL that is hilarious. Who on earth came up with the idea to put the Launcher into this program?

"I will use Avira because their Launcher is great!" said no one ever

They ruined their new product before it even started

they managed to implement half of their AV into the launcher.
settings and other tabs are opening in the old separate windows with old Avira layout, and the "main" settings are in the new launcher
hack job if you ask me

 

[Deleted member 65228]

they managed to implement half of their AV into the launcher.
settings and other tabs are opening in the old separate windows with old Avira layout, and the "main" settings are in the new launcher
hack job if you ask me

So half the AV comes equipped in the Launcher with the new privacy app?

Also that sounds really stupid. So they made a new UI and layout but it is half baked so everything else has the old UI still on popup windows? Or am I misunderstanding?

 

[mekelek]

So half the AV comes equipped in the Launcher with the new privacy app?

Also that sounds really stupid. So they made a new UI and layout but it is half baked so everything else has the old UI still on popup windows? Or am I misunderstanding?

the launcher has all the products they have, you can use it to download the products.
most of them are standalone and doesnt need the launcher, but the AV is half inside the launcher, half outside.
so yes, they half baked it.

 

[Deleted member 65228]

the launcher has all the products they have, you can use it to download the products.
most of them are standalone and doesnt need the launcher, but the AV is half inside the launcher, half outside.
so yes, they half baked it.

This is making me giggle

I would imagine they have a lot of business partners licensing their technology though (Avira have a lot more than signatures... They have a cloud network, Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning, etc.) and they license it to people through their paid enterprise SDK.

So that is probably a factor contributing to why they even exist today given their stupid Launcher approach and lack for a non-half baked modern UI.

 

[Deleted member 65228]

Bitdefender as well.

All those bugs throughout the year that never end up being fixed... They probably don't care because they must make a whole bank worth of money every year through a few business clients who use their engine.

Think about all the people that use the Bitdefender engine one way or another, plus the expense probably differs between how extensive the licensed SDK is for the specific vendors needs.

1. F-Secure
2. G-DATA
3. Emsisoft
4. VIPRE
5. IObit

That is 5 vendors already who will be paying for the Bitdefender engine so in total across the payments from all 5 I would assume it would be quite a lot... And there are plenty more vendors using their engine.