Why no one prefers Norton ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mateotis said:
With PCs. You know, the so-called bloatware. When it comes to personal experience, I've had problems on family members' PCs having "McAfee Security Shield" constantly running in the background when they didn't even install it - on a fresh new PC.

On the other hand, I have never used any Symantec or McAfee products and such, I have no right to judge them. I was just stating what I've heard from before, but I didn't keep up with their updates at all. If they fixed them, then it's great. :)
Click to expand...
like qq messagingsoftware full of bloatware
 
Mateotis said:
With PCs. You know, the so-called bloatware. When it comes to personal experience, I've had problems on family members' PCs having "McAfee Security Shield" constantly running in the background when they didn't even install it - on a fresh new PC.

On the other hand, I have never used any Symantec or McAfee products and such, I have no right to judge them. I was just stating what I've heard from before, but I didn't keep up with their updates at all. If they fixed them, then it's great. :)
Click to expand...
Ah, that stuff :)
Well I don't like software preinstalled with OS either
 
BoraMurdar said:
Ah, that stuff :)
Well I don't like software preinstalled with OS either
Click to expand...

Well that's not the fault of Symantec for the plain and simple reason vendors like Dell and others the pre-pack their OS images with a bunch of programs and then sell it on their laptops and other devices, and Symantec or any other software supplier just collects the cash from it.
that's called doing business and that's not a scare tactic that's making money and you cannot blame them for taking a Dell contract to supply say 100k images of their AV to be pre-packed in Dell laptops.

Just saying and i honestly would like to see computer vendors just supply the laptop + OS and drivers and a full backup image and nothing else, however user friendliness is being the culprit here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mehdi-n and BoraMurdar
n.nvt said:
Well that's not the fault of Symantec for the plain and simple reason vendors like Dell and others the pre-pack their OS images with a bunch of programs and then sell it on their laptops and other devices, and Symantec or any other software supplier just collects the cash from it.
that's called doing business and that's not a scare tactic that's making money and you cannot blame them for taking a Dell contract to supply say 100k images of their AV to be pre-packed in Dell laptops.

Just saying and i honestly would like to see computer vendors just supply the laptop + OS and drivers and a full backup image and nothing else, however user friendliness is being the culprit here.
Click to expand...
Business and marketing ...
I am waiting for the days when FMA Intel Secure widget will come preinstalled on some machines :rolleyes:
 
n.nvt said:
Lol if that would be the case then ching ching me happy.
other then that i see no reason it ever would as it is not designed to be user program just like that.
Click to expand...
You cannot know what future brings :)
Maybe one day you try to try that also, and company goes breadthwise
 
Hi maybe a bit late in this thread but here is my opinion.
Bearing in mind that I am a home user of Norton Internet Security not there Endpoint Protection

My first thought I would like to convey is the need for becoming personally aware of the the persistent and ever changing Threats that face Internet users, and that the subtlety and complexity of Malware is here to stay and can catch anyone out on a good or bad day even if they are vigilant and knowledgeable. So getting knowledgeable as best as you can manage with the enemy's tactics of attacking and infiltrating your system to me is not an education you should ignore. I would never like to become paranoid about it to the point of electronic paralysis, but just try and stay aware of wide and fast spreading dangers. In my opinion of Internet society we love fast answers quick responses. I personally think there is tremendous need to get acquainted with asking the right questions and to have good critical thinking.

What I like about Norton Internet Security for my system is that it is very light on resources and its detection ability using SONAR and Reputation of files downloaded is adequate for my online life style. I don't hardly get any false positives mainly because after a while you become knowledgeable of what is the regular software for your needs and you get that software from trustworthy places. If I get a warning from Norton or it deletes a download I am happy that the program has responded in a way that I can further investigate. yes it might be an annoyance sometime but that annoyance might teach me to ask why has it responded like that. Now if I want to adjust Norton's sensitivity how it determines whats safe or not, that option is available within the program. You can if you will to override Nortons determination.

Malware Detection wise I was sweating for a while because people reported low detection levels from the malware packs. Its was then I decided that most of the files in the packs would normally arrive via somebody downloading them one by one or arriving on usb stick
So I spent a good amount of time draging each individual file in a malware pack onto a browser window to simulate downloading off the web and the result of that was very high detection versus the usual right click scan pack method. This convinced me that protection from Norton was very adequate in the majority of cases, and where there was no conclusion about the safety of a particular file Norton would inform me of its current reputation and usage.

A feature I like very much of Nortons is its intrusion detection for which it has many rules and signatures.
I also like its Smart firewall which generally never gets in the road of day to day internet use, Though if you want to you can set it to alert you on nearly anything if you like things that way, and for periods of time its is quite good for you to become aware of whats trying to connect with what Internet wise and get a feel for just how much programs on your pc like to make outbound connections.

Now while I cannot make a case that Norton Internet Security is 100% bulletproof. It goes a long way in protection than some realize.
The things that I would like to see more of in the Home Product is some of more detailed settings that you find in there End Point Protection but that's just me cause I like to have the more precise control of the product to use especially since I experiment with malicious code in Virtual Machines.

I have stayed with Norton Internet Security for the bulk of my 1 year license and really like it.

I would like to say also there are many very adequate Antivirus Programs recommended here on MalwareTips and they all have there day in the limelight as well as there dreaded days when they have failed miserably to protect the user and if you dig around for info on Antivirus Programs there is a good percentage that for very brief periods some have rendered users pc's inoperable.

I cannot say just go with Norton, instead check out reviews here on MalwareTips and in particular if you see in your own computer use that you are a bit on the wild side in what and where you download then look for a product that has the options of hardening your system from harm. A features that comes to mind is in Avast which has various levels of hardening from moderate to aggressive. Thats only one example of many.

The good thing about this forum is you can freely ask users what does this or that do in the options of any particular Antivirus or Full Security Suite

There is a truckload of wealth in information here on MalwareTips
My apologies if this is a bit toooo long though i do hope it helps someone or two

Kind Regards
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay123, frogboy, mehdi-n and 7 others
venustus said:
Norton should have retained the option for the "full definition" signatures download,instead of only allowing users the option for "Smart defs" only!It's detection would have been better!
Just my opinion!
Thanks!:)
Click to expand...
I agree, I think there is a good case all-round for full definition signatures, in particular where people are still on flacky and slow broadband. I live in rural New Zealand and our ISP only guarantees 1MBps for this area which is on some very old and the tec company reckon that about 25% of the copper on our road is corroded or in poor quality. If there was an option in Norton to tick for full set of all signatures I wouldn't care if it was over a gig, if that made a difference.:)
Capture.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: Venustus
Arpith said:
Hi..we know how old norton products are. and do use very good technologies. But in this forum no one seems to recommend it for a normal user? why is it so?
As far as I know they have very low system impact as compared to its older products.
Dont they have good detection rate? or do they have any other problem?
Click to expand...
Hi Arpith, Norton is actually good, may be because now we have so many newer products with a range of jargon's to influence all of us, we all tend to get carried away with typical names as they use, we ignore the old one's which still are using the same old vocabulary for their products. This doesn't make them less effective but lesser attention seeker.
 
detection rate sucks and its zero protection is 50% good/50% awful
 
nsm0220 said:
detection rate sucks and its zero protection is 50% good/50% awful
Click to expand...

Lol thats a baseless comment which does not hit the the truth by miles.
* Note i do not have ANY love for review magazines oke? BUT they all say the same thing:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2089...security-suite-with-excellent-protection.html
http://www.zdnet.com/norton-2014-still-a-good-decision-7000020195/
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/norton-360-2014,review-2044.html

Just to name a few popular ones, and yes sure you will be able to counter my reply with some magazines that contradict everything i said.
However ONE thing is a fact that cannot be changed, Zeroday malware detection tests across a testing lab organisations all rank Norton/Symantec as a top 5 player when it comes to this particular ability.
So that being said your comment is baseless, not true and personally motivated.
And thats fine by me, so install the product you like and come to the malware removal topic when you get infected because your own SUPER product failed you and i am most happy to send you a Norton clean up tool that will remove the danger for you.
Now how ironic would that be?
My point here is Norton, ESET, Mcafee, Sophos, Kasperky and other triple A brands have virtually the same zeroday capabilties as a package combined, because judging a software package just by one module is not going to cut it.
So yeah maybe you do have a point maybe the module that takes care of Zeroday dangers does suck within the Norton/Symantec packages, but the whole package combined will make up for that and suddenly that same module becomes magic.
The reason i say this is because you are not installing one specific module, but you install a whole package and as such it can match ANY other program out there.
I challenge you to contradict that with FACTS.

So please humor me.
* And please stay away from 2013 and past comments as its so 2010:rolleyes:;):D
 
  • Like
Reactions: mehdi-n, Ulikedat, Oxygen and 1 other person
Last year when I had it, it was awful. The detection rate was fine, i'd say even scanning was okay. But, it was incredibly slow. It was constantly freezing even by clicking a button. When you have 4gb RAM, and you have no other applications being executed except Skype and of course the Windows system (winlogin, explorer.exe etc) *checked manually on processes open* then it is very poor to be freezing over nothing.

Being a developer myself, I know creating a good, functional product in the security industry which people will appreciate and like, is incredibly hard. However, to a average user who need's a secure PC, if it's constantly freezing there not going to like it.

Again, this was last time I tried Norton. I'm sure they have improved by a lot. I shall test them again, soon.
 
nsm0220 said:
how is a 16.16% a good detection rate
Click to expand...
Based on what? is it based upon your extensive and hyper modern testing lab, combined with your years and years of experience?
Or is it based upon the fact that you click every link known to man and you close every alert and pop-up with out even reading & understanding what it actually means?

Please do not make sensational comments without proper facts.
If you got something to say then please do so but please stick with facts or state that its your PERSONAL opinion.
Don't just trow some words out there for the sake of trowing and filling forum posts.
Please be constructive, provide sources, do some testing, watch other tests and participate in the forum just like everyone else.
If you just do not know that's fine by me we will be most happy in educating you.
Not trying to be offensive and not trying to discredit you, but here on this community you have many people and each one has their own experience and opinion however we all have one thing in common we are all people and we can all learn and we stick with facts.
Bad is bad, good is good and plausible is plausible that being said your comments do not fit any of this description.
I personally have provided so many sources and links and if that's not enough please hit Google and seek info yourself from respected sources or just hit up the latest test reports from various independent test labs and then you know instantly that everything you said so far regarding this topic does not even make any sense.

Cheers
 
  • Like
Reactions: mehdi-n and Ink
I never disliked Norton however recently i decided to give it another go and even tho i have less programs on my computer than the average user i disliked it very much that it came up with too much false flags. I think with their enormous userbase and funds they should not be so careless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Koroke San
Status
Not open for further replies.

You may also like...