Why you should never buy Symantec / Norton products

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dave
  • Start date Start date
Shawn Hirn pravi:
True, but my Mac is loaded with software, but no antivirus stuff. Hell,
The software I use most was pre-installed by Apple on the computer right
out of the box, and I use my Mac every day.
Click to expand...

I heard that same story from a certain Linux user. Claimed Antiviruses
were a resource hog and was equally proud about not having one on his box.

All until one day we were doing some stuff together and he copied some
files over to my own Linux server, which has an AntiVirus. I scanned his
files as they arrived, before we ran them, as I do with all programs and
found 2 or 3 Linux viruses hiding in them, all capable of installing a
root-kit once in /bin (the programs we were using needed root to run).
He never knew he had them and was spreading them anywhere he put his
programs.

I set a full system scan with immediate delete upon detection in my
crontab and never looked back again.

Linux viruses work fine on Macs, you might want to not be so confident
about your safety.

--
Primary function: Coprocessor
Secondary function: Cluster commander

http://www.thought-beacon.net

Pay once per lifetime webhosting:
http://farcomm-it.com/?ref=jsah

We are the paragon of humanity. You may worship us. From afar.

01010010 01100101 01110011 01101001 01100100 01100101 01101110 01110100
01000010 01000001 01010011 01001001 01000011
 
Brian K pravi:
I use Symantec products currently. I have also used Norton Utilities
and Anti-virus versions for a number of years. The internet security
product is not one that I have experience. But any anti-virus, Trojan,
adware package is only as good as its user. If you don't schedule
complete scans with updated definition files, stuff is going to get in.
If you swap home burned CDs or floppy disks that is a vector that even
the best sentry program won't catch, especially if you override warnings
and install that game anyway 'cause it rocks.
Click to expand...

In other words you are saying that 2/3 of all Norton AV users are a bit
stupid.

....Well I would come to agree, since they appear to have paid for an
antivirus package that doesn't work, but seriously...

Norton AV is quite capable of screwing itself up even without external
intervention. I once had Norton AV to install on a client computer that
was sent in for hardware repair. I did a fresh install of Windows XP
SP2, partitions wiped, and Norton AV from an original disc the
computer's owner provided. I have not installed any other software or
drivers as it was getting late. I locked the screen and left the
computer connected to the Internet, running overnight, to see if it's
stable. Next morning, I get to work, Bang! it's swarming with malware,
ad-banners and porn everywhere.

Nobody else could have used it since they did not have the password. I
reformatted the computer, installing Windows XP SP2, this time leaving
out Norton AV and it worked like a charm!


Later as I was discussing this with another fellow, who happened to be
another Norton enthusiast, I heard this lamest excuse ever, which is
that every Nth installation of Norton turns into a virus to prevent
excessive piracy. Just like it was said in the old days of floppies,
that every Nth time you copy something on a floppy, it turns into a
virus to prevent piracy. BULLSHIT.

Crap software.



--
Primary function: Coprocessor
Secondary function: Cluster commander

http://www.thought-beacon.net

Pay once per lifetime webhosting:
http://farcomm-it.com/?ref=jsah

We are the paragon of humanity. You may worship us. From afar.

01010010 01100101 01110011 01101001 01100100 01100101 01101110 01110100
01000010 01000001 01010011 01001001 01000011
 
I guess you missed my post, where I mentioned that my company
has seen several cases where Norton was installed correctly,
and INDICATED that it was updating properly, yet still failed
to actually function, allowing well-known viruses to propagate.
We have not seen that with products from other publishers.
 
M Berger pravi:
I guess you missed my post, where I mentioned that my company
has seen several cases where Norton was installed correctly,
and INDICATED that it was updating properly, yet still failed
to actually function, allowing well-known viruses to propagate.
We have not seen that with products from other publishers.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, Norton will "successfully update", replacing it's files with
0-byte equivalents.

--
Primary function: Coprocessor
Secondary function: Cluster commander

http://www.thought-beacon.net

Pay once per lifetime webhosting:
http://farcomm-it.com/?ref=jsah

We are the paragon of humanity. You may worship us. From afar.

01010010 01100101 01110011 01101001 01100100 01100101 01101110 01110100
01000010 01000001 01010011 01001001 01000011
 
Jure said:
M Berger pravi:

Sometimes, Norton will "successfully update", replacing it's files with
0-byte equivalents.
Click to expand...

Figures.

It came sort of semi-pre-installed on my mom's new HP. Every time she
turns her machine on it demands to be fully installed and requires a YES
answer to NOT install it, which is really sneaky. Is the easiest way to
get rid of it forever via the add/remove programs stuff, or do I need to
drive some sort of digital stake through its heart?

--
Cheers,
Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Once you've provoked a few people into publicly swearing they are going
to hunt you down and kill you, the thrill wears off." -Elric of Imrryr
 
The said:
Jesus, they supply their own assassin? Thanks, I'll check it out.
Click to expand...

OUCH! Christ, what kind of idiots choose or devise something this hard
to kill and don't even ask if you want it or not? If add/remove doesn't
handle it I think I'll just leave it alone.

Or maybe just delete its entire subdirectory...
 
The said:
OUCH! Christ, what kind of idiots choose or devise something this hard
to kill
Click to expand...

People whose program is specifically targeted by viruses to be killed,
that's who.
 
David said:
People whose program is specifically targeted by viruses to be killed,
that's who.
Click to expand...

I've used f-prot forever, or at least for a long time. Free. Run it
whenever you like. Download new virus definitions every couple of
days/seeks/months depending on your paranoia level. Works fine. And if
you get mad at it you can just delete its subdirectory.

Civilized.
 
The said:
I've used f-prot forever, or at least for a long time. Free. Run it
whenever you like. Download new virus definitions every couple of
days/seeks/months depending on your paranoia level. Works fine. And if
you get mad at it you can just delete its subdirectory.

Civilized.
Click to expand...

That's nice. However, my point still stands as I doubt there are many virus
gurus out there specifically targeting it like they do Norton.
 
The target is Windows, not Norton. Norton just does
a substantially worse job of protecting Windows.
 
M said:
The target is Windows, not Norton.
Click to expand...

The end target is windows but some viruses specifically attack Norton for
the obvious reason that if it blocks them they can't go on to their other
purpose.
Norton just does
a substantially worse job of protecting Windows.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but none of the anecdotal stories in this thread prove it.
 
David Maynard said:
The end target is windows but some viruses specifically attack Norton for
the obvious reason that if it blocks them they can't go on to their other
purpose.


Perhaps, but none of the anecdotal stories in this thread prove it.
Click to expand...

BS Dave don't take the opposite side for the sake of argument.....that
software is trash at its best. ANYBODY in the know , knows it. Walking in 2
weeks after the thread started to take the opposite side is.... well a dead
give a way.
And being the target doesn't let norton off the hook, shit or get off the
pot..........
 
JAD said:
BS Dave don't take the opposite side for the sake of argument.....that
software is trash at its best. ANYBODY in the know , knows it. Walking in 2
weeks after the thread started to take the opposite side is.... well a dead
give a way.
And being the target doesn't let norton off the hook, shit or get off the
pot..........
Click to expand...

I've used just about every anti-virus package out there and none are perfect.

While I wouldn't rate Norton at the top, and have my own complaints about
it, the argument it's "trash at its best" is hysterics, as well as the
claim it doesn't work.

The free AV offerings, btw, consistently rank below the 'pay for' offerings
but maybe not enough to offset being 'free'. Like everything, it depends on
the individual.

McAfee has excellent detection, if you don't mind installing their 'on your
computer' ad campaign for everything else they make along with it. The
'McAfee Security Center' is like having a miniature AOL installed where you
can't hardly spit without it telling you of other things you should get,
from them of course, and if you're the type that never fiddles with such
things they throw in some popups lest you 'miss out'.

BitDefender 9 Standard is lower cost, with excellent anti-virus detection,
but with no spyware scanner like in McAfee.

In tests, NAV's weak points seem to be in heuristics and trojan detection,
but then it is also one of the lowest in false positives.

As always, the best front line defense is the user.
 
David said:
I've used just about every anti-virus package out there and none are
perfect.
Click to expand...

Ditto, and agreed.
While I wouldn't rate Norton at the top, and have my own complaints
about it, the argument it's "trash at its best" is hysterics, as well as
the claim it doesn't work.
Click to expand...

I disagree. In my experience, Norton and McAfee are the most
unjustifiably top-heavy (Example: bloated, causing sys slowdowns), the
most annoying (Example: frequently demands user attention) generally,
and _the least effective_.

In the case of antivirus programs, you DON'T get what you pay for. IMHO.

I do like Trend Micro's PC-CILLIN, but it is not perfect, either.
 
David Maynard said:
I've used just about every anti-virus package out there and none are
Click to expand...
perfect.


you would like people to believe thaT WOULDN'T YOU?
While I wouldn't rate Norton at the top, and have my own complaints about
it, the argument it's "trash at its best" is hysterics, as well as the
claim it doesn't work.
Click to expand...

My Ass, hysterics are your department.

The free AV offerings, btw, consistently rank below the 'pay for' offerings
but maybe not enough to offset being 'free'. Like everything, it depends on
the individual.
Click to expand...

ranked by who YOU or the pay for anti virus makers?
 
David said:
I've used just about every anti-virus package out there and none are perfect.

While I wouldn't rate Norton at the top, and have my own complaints about
it, the argument it's "trash at its best" is hysterics, as well as the
claim it doesn't work.

The free AV offerings, btw, consistently rank below the 'pay for' offerings
but maybe not enough to offset being 'free'. Like everything, it depends on
the individual.
Click to expand...

Except for f-prot. I guess it doesn't count because you run it in a DOS
window on demand and kills only after infestation. Big deal. People
who worry about catching viruses whenever they're on line probably don't
practice safe sex either.

--
Cheers,
Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Little Mary took her skis upon the snow to frisk.
Wasn't she a silly girl her little * ?
 
ToolPackinMama said:
Ditto, and agreed.



I disagree. In my experience, Norton and McAfee are the most
unjustifiably top-heavy (Example: bloated, causing sys slowdowns), the
most annoying (Example: frequently demands user attention) generally,
and _the least effective_.
Click to expand...

Depends on how ones 'measures' it and what capabilities are activated and
being used. Just as a 'for example', a scanner checking more file extension
types, and deep into compressed files, on both reads and writes is going to
take up more time and resources than one checking fewer types on only
writes. Which, btw, happens to be what I set them to on slower machines for
just that reason, and the theory that it's less likely to be there to
'read' if it doesn't first get written.

In PC World's March test of disk scanning speed the 'you pay for it' winner
was Panda at 106 seconds. It also happens to be the most expensive. Mcafee
came in at 242 seconds with NAV close by at 272 seconds. F-Secure was down
at 388 with Kaspersky at 420 and BitDefender 9 bringing up the rear at 556
seconds. BitDefender, however, was their "Best Buy" choice.
In the case of antivirus programs, you DON'T get what you pay for. IMHO.

I do like Trend Micro's PC-CILLIN, but it is not perfect, either.
Click to expand...

If speed is the determining factor then your choice of PC-Cillin is right
up there as it came in second at 126 seconds, just a few over Panda, which
it tied with for most expensive. Both, however, got the lowest overall
rating, "good," of the 'you pay for it' group with the lowest scores in the
AV-Test zoo threats category. PC-Cillin was also the only one to score
lower than Norton with Heuristic detection of both one and two-month-old
signatures while Panda just barely managed to eke Norton out by 1 point
with one month old signatures, but lost on 2 month old, with all the others
at least twice as good.

PC World apparently didn't do a false positives test but in another battery
by av-comparatives.org Norton was the only one with no false positives and
McAfee was the only one rated "very few" for second place. Now, that might
not mean much to the experienced who can then make a judgment for
themselves but, for those less knowledgeable, false positives can be a
serious issue.

Interestingly enough, PC World felt the need to discuss the bottom end
Heuristics performance of PC-Cillin, maybe because it was their 'Best Buy'
pick for June 2004, and, according to them, the PC-Cillin folks feel that
the problem of false positives outweighs the benefit and, so, don't place
much emphasis on it. They had a similar answer for the zoo threat
performance saying those threats (in the test) have never affected their
customers (hmm).

They loved it's ease of use, however, rating it best on that score.

However, back to the original 'issue', none of them were rated "trash at
its best" or "don't work," not even Norton. In fact, they said "At their
default configurations and with up-to-date virus definitions in place, all
of the products that AV-Test evaluated were 100 percent successful at
detecting WildList viruses in real time and on demand."
 
Back
Top