Norton auto-protect enough for stopping spyware hijacks?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomas G. Marshall
  • Start date Start date
T

Thomas G. Marshall

Is it ever the case that the Norton AV "auto-protect", that continuing
running thing, will protect from hijack attempts?

Or do I need a full time background anti-spyware in /addition/ to Norton?

And if so, which works ok (and doesn't conflict) with norton-av auto
protect? Does norton sell an anti-spyware program that works well?
 
Thomas G. Marshall typed:
Is it ever the case that the Norton AV "auto-protect", that continuing
running thing, will protect from hijack attempts?
No.

Or do I need a full time background anti-spyware in /addition/ to
Norton?
Yes.

And if so, which works ok (and doesn't conflict) with norton-av auto
protect?
Winpatrol
http://www.winpatrol.com/

Does norton sell an anti-spyware program that works well?
Click to expand...

No.
 
CalamityKen wrote,
in post news:[email protected] :
Thomas G. Marshall typed:

No.
Click to expand...


Norton protects from viruses. I've heard that the newer versions
may have some trojan protection too, but not spyware/adware
protection. SpywareBlaster and it's partner SpywareGuard are
very good. I haven't tried Winpatrol, but I hear it's good too, as
Ken said. And don't forget IE-SPYAD. There is some good stuff
out there. But here's a list of stuff to avoid at all cost:
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm
Cactus88
 
Cactus88 coughed up:
CalamityKen wrote,
in post news:[email protected] :


Norton protects from viruses. I've heard that the newer versions
may have some trojan protection too, but not spyware/adware
protection. SpywareBlaster and it's partner SpywareGuard are
very good. I haven't tried Winpatrol, but I hear it's good too, as
Ken said. And don't forget IE-SPYAD. There is some good stuff
out there. But here's a list of stuff to avoid at all cost:
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm
Cactus88
Click to expand...


Does anyone have a notion as to what the system-wide impact is of a
continually resident spyware shield is?

For example, I know that in the case of the standard "which is better,
MacAfee or Norton AV" usenet questions, the consensus is that they both more
or less balance out to equal *but* that MacAfee's TSR (sorry for the old
term) severely clobbers the system performance, where the Norton one makes
an impact upon it, but not terribly so.

So I suppose I'd be looking for one that doesn't suck down any more
bandwidth than is absolutely necessary. I'm already feeling that phantom
"XP slowdown" that users complain about that no one seems to fully
understand.
 
Thomas G. Marshall wrote,
in post :
[...]
Does anyone have a notion as to what the system-wide impact is of a
continually resident spyware shield is?

For example, I know that in the case of the standard "which is better,
MacAfee or Norton AV" usenet questions, the consensus is that they both more
or less balance out to equal *but* that MacAfee's TSR (sorry for the old
term) severely clobbers the system performance, where the Norton one makes
an impact upon it, but not terribly so.

So I suppose I'd be looking for one that doesn't suck down any more
bandwidth than is absolutely necessary. I'm already feeling that phantom
"XP slowdown" that users complain about that no one seems to fully
understand.
Click to expand...


Well I know one thing for certain- SpywareBlaster and IE-SPYAD
are not running, and so they don't use any resources at all. They
just place sites in the registry where they'll block bad ActiveX junk
and spyware/tracking cookies(SpywareBlaster), and other bad
sites in the IE Restricted Zone(IE-SPYAD), where they're very
restricted in what they can do. Very restricted. Passive protection.
C88
 
Thomas said:
Is it ever the case that the Norton AV "auto-protect", that continuing
running thing, will protect from hijack attempts?

Or do I need a full time background anti-spyware in /addition/ to
Norton?

And if so, which works ok (and doesn't conflict) with norton-av auto
protect? Does norton sell an anti-spyware program that works well?
Click to expand...

I couldnt see why their anti-spyware software would work any better then
their anti virus and firewall.

Norton 2004 & 2005 products are horendous, unless you have a high spec
system with 512mb of ram, your system will run like a three legged dog.

Gaz
 
Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
Click to expand...
I couldnt see why their anti-spyware software would work any better then
their anti virus and firewall.

Norton 2004 & 2005 products are horendous, unless you have a high spec
system with 512mb of ram, your system will run like a three legged dog.
Click to expand...

Years ago I tried one of the older versions of Norton on my 486, but
I had to uninstall it because it "run like a three legged dog".

Geo
 
"Thomas G. Marshall"
Is it ever the case that the Norton AV "auto-protect", that continuing
running thing, will protect from hijack attempts?
Click to expand...

Yes, but only certain ones that use exploit code known to Norton.
Or do I need a full time background anti-spyware in /addition/ to
Click to expand...
Norton?

Yes, if you are going to insist on unsafe browsing (IE w/scripting
enabled, etc...).
And if so, which works ok (and doesn't conflict) with norton-av auto
protect? Does norton sell an anti-spyware program that works well?
Click to expand...

Can't help ya there, I just keep current (I hope) and surf without
active scripting...only sometimes use detection/cleanup tools. Many AVs
are increasing their scope into adware and spyware, and if I'm not
mistaken a browser hijacker is an adware.

Using an alternative to IE (or MS for that matter) will do alot for you
security-wise.
 
Gaz coughed up:
I couldnt see why their anti-spyware software would work any better
then their anti virus and firewall.

Norton 2004 & 2005 products are horendous, unless you have a high spec
system with 512mb of ram, your system will run like a three legged
dog.

Gaz
Click to expand...

Is that true? I was /really/ concerned about full-time virus protection
bandwidth impact, and I discovered that many did not like mcafee for that
reason, and switched to norton because it is less a bandwidth hog.
 
Thomas G. Marshall wrote,
in post news:iE_Jd.20745$Vx2.19166@trndny01 :
Is that true? I was /really/ concerned about full-time virus protection
bandwidth impact, and I discovered that many did not like mcafee for that
reason, and switched to norton because it is less a bandwidth hog.
Click to expand...


I don't know about 2004 or 2005, but my NAV2003 is great. I'm keeping
this AV software forever, or until I can no longer get updated signatures
or definition files. And that's all I have to say about thayet...
PZ
-
 
Cactus88 coughed up:
Thomas G. Marshall wrote,
in post news:iE_Jd.20745$Vx2.19166@trndny01 :


I don't know about 2004 or 2005, but my NAV2003 is great. I'm keeping
this AV software forever, or until I can no longer get updated
signatures or definition files. And that's all I have to say about
thayet... PZ
-
Click to expand...

That's the one I have too (norton systemworks 2003 pro). I got it for $8.50
including shipping (!) in 2004. Always get the year prior to the current
year. You get the latest definitions for a year regardless.

It doesn't seem to impact my system too much, as far as I can tell.
HOWEVER, there /IS/ a that phantom winXP slowdown that folks often complain
about that no one yet understands (without the norton stuff even running).
XP over time just slows down, and there're a lot of folks who agree.
 
It doesn't seem to impact my system too much, as far as I can tell.
HOWEVER, there /IS/ a that phantom winXP slowdown that folks often complain
about that no one yet understands (without the norton stuff even running).
XP over time just slows down, and there're a lot of folks who agree.
Click to expand...

Poor administration can cause a slow down in any OS.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/expert/northrup_restoreperf.mspx

Is there another "mysterious" reason for the slow downs? (Not meaning any
condescension, just curious as I am not aware of any other problems.)
 
Thomas G. Marshall said:
Gaz coughed up:

Is that true? I was /really/ concerned about full-time virus protection
bandwidth impact, and I discovered that many did not like mcafee for that
reason, and switched to norton because it is less a bandwidth hog.
Click to expand...

I never really had any problems with norton 2002 and 2003,just 04/05. They
really are complete resource hogs, really really bad, and add between 60
seconds three minutes to your boot, and suck up your spare system memory.

For most peoplewith XP, sp2 firewall is a good enough firewall, and I have
not noticed *any* resource hog with it on, and AVG as an anti virus, while
avg7 seems more hungry then avg6, essentially it resides and doesnt cause
any slow down until it does its daily scan.

Gaz
 
"Thomas G. Marshall"
Gaz coughed up:

Is that true? I was /really/ concerned about full-time virus
protection bandwidth impact, and I discovered that many did not like
mcafee for that reason, and switched to norton because it is less a
bandwidth hog.
Click to expand...

I never really had any problems with norton 2002 and 2003,just 04/05.
They really are complete resource hogs, really really bad, and add
between 60 seconds three minutes to your boot, and suck up your spare
system memory.

For most peoplewith XP, sp2 firewall is a good enough firewall, and I
have not noticed *any* resource hog with it on, and AVG as an anti
virus, while avg7 seems more hungry then avg6, essentially it resides
and doesnt cause any slow down until it does its daily scan.

Gaz
Click to expand...
I'dratherhaveabottleinfrontofme....
BTW I run NIS 2005, the whole package, on an Athlon 2400+ with a gig of
ram. Doesn't seem to hinder it much.
 
Lil' Abner said:
"Thomas G. Marshall"
Gaz coughed up:
Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
Is it ever the case that the Norton AV "auto-protect", that
continuing running thing, will protect from hijack attempts?

Or do I need a full time background anti-spyware in /addition/ to
Norton?

And if so, which works ok (and doesn't conflict) with norton-av
auto protect? Does norton sell an anti-spyware program that works
well?

I couldnt see why their anti-spyware software would work any better
then their anti virus and firewall.

Norton 2004 & 2005 products are horendous, unless you have a high
spec system with 512mb of ram, your system will run like a three
legged dog.

Gaz

Is that true? I was /really/ concerned about full-time virus
protection bandwidth impact, and I discovered that many did not like
mcafee for that reason, and switched to norton because it is less a
bandwidth hog.
Click to expand...

I never really had any problems with norton 2002 and 2003,just 04/05.
They really are complete resource hogs, really really bad, and add
between 60 seconds three minutes to your boot, and suck up your spare
system memory.

For most peoplewith XP, sp2 firewall is a good enough firewall, and I
have not noticed *any* resource hog with it on, and AVG as an anti
virus, while avg7 seems more hungry then avg6, essentially it resides
and doesnt cause any slow down until it does its daily scan.

Gaz
Click to expand...
I'dratherhaveabottleinfrontofme....
BTW I run NIS 2005, the whole package, on an Athlon 2400+ with a gig of
ram. Doesn't seem to hinder it much.
Click to expand...

That might be something to do with the 2400+ cpu and 1gb of ram
then.........

Try running it on a 2400 with 256mb ram (most PCs bought by none technical
people will come with 256mb)...... it comes close to crippling your
computer.

Gaz
 
Back
Top