RSSNorton Secures the Perimeter
By David Worthington | Published July 9, 2004, 12:31 AM
With Microsoft quietly slipping into their backyard, security vendors may be caught in a prisoner's dilemma: making rational decisions in anticipation of Microsoft's next move. Symantec has released a beta of its upcoming consumer antivirus solution, Norton AntiVirus 2005 (NAV), that incorporates what Symantec has dubbed "Internet Worm Protection". While worms are a growing menace, there is a catch; Norton's Internet Worm Protection component suggests that users disable Windows XP's Windows Firewall.
A Symantec spokesperson told BetaNews that the feature (Internet Worm Protection) is not a firewall, and that it has added this functionality to provide users with an extra layer of protection against what it deems, "one of the most prevalent threats on the Internet."
"A true firewall solution includes both inbound and outbound protection as well as intrusion detection technology," said the spokesperson. "Users need all three forms of protection, antivirus, firewall and intrusion detection, in order to be adequately protected from the full range of today's Internet security threats. For the vast majority of users, Symantec's Norton Internet Security should be the product of choice to safeguard their computer systems."
Despite Symantec's claims, product documentation reveals that NAV monitors incoming IP traffic, the behavior of outgoing network traffic, and searches for and responds to malicious network traffic. Furthermore, Symantec has stated that the Internet Worm Protection found in NAV 2005, "functions similarly to the Windows Firewall found in Service Pack 2."
While users can run both Windows Firewall and NAV simultaneously, Symantec recommends disabling Windows security features to avoid experiencing a noticeable degradation in performance.
With Windows Firewall, Microsoft has sharpened the elbows of Windows XP's built-in firewall; once rudimentary and unable to scan outgoing traffic. Likewise, many users were unaware of the firewall's existence.
"According to Jupiter Research consumer surveys, 67 percent of Windows XP households say that they have a firewall installed. While that might seem like a high number, consider that 100 percent of Windows XP users have a built-in firewall, yet at least one third are unaware the software is there," said Joe Wilcox, a senior analyst with Jupiter Research.
While Windows Firewall is notable, Windows XP Service Pack 2 also introduces the Windows Security Center which is a control panel interface geared toward making Windows security features more intuitive and accessible to end users. The interface display dialogs that alert users whenever "Security Essentials" such as firewalls, automatic updates, and virus protection are not turned on.
Microsoft insists that it has enabled opportunities for third party developers to offer additional functionality to that offered by Windows Firewall through the Windows Security Center.
"Third party firewall products that ship with many PCs will still be required in many environments, because Windows Firewall and many third-party firewall solutions offer different functionality," said a spokesperson.
While Microsoft continues to work closely with vendors to create policies and technologies that secure the Windows computing environment, it has done some legwork of its own. Under the auspice of its Trustworthy Computing initiative, Microsoft acquired the assets of the antivirus vendor GeCAD Software June of 2003.
Later on that summer, Microsoft began a second round of testing for its PC Satisfaction Trial. PC Satisfaction included an unusual mix of services that broke the bounds of Microsoft's traditional product offerings. These services included an antivirus scanning engine provided by F-Secure, a self-updating firewall, programmatic backups and automated software updates from Windows Update.
Some of the interface elements and lessons learned from the PC Satisfaction trial found their way into Windows Security Center.
The test itself had repercussions, triggering unease within Microsoft's community of developers. At the time PC Satisfaction was announced, a vendor who asked to remain anonymous remarked, "Interesting thing; they were asking us a bunch of questions months back about AV (i.e. DAT file update method, how frequently should an AV company update DATs, etc.) and we thought it was due to our partnership. Then, lo and behold, out pops PC Satisfaction. Coincidence?"
Going into next week's worldwide partner conference in Toronto -- where Microsoft plans to tout Windows security as a "competitive advantage" -- vendors have incentive to capitalize on the software giant's growing commitment to security, but due to their own perceptions, some will undoubtedly view Microsoft's growing portfolio of security assets as reason for unrest.
"Microsoft's decision to include a firewall in Windows XP caused rumblings back in 2001, particularly considering the then ongoing U.S. antitrust trial. Now, responding to recent worms, Microsoft is exposing more functionality, which might not sit well with third-party vendors," said Jupiter's Wilcox.
It was a fast install, updates reguraly, no problem running on Windows XP. Has not slowed my system down at all. I am also running Sygate firewall and they work great side by side
Score: 0
|Now we have many problems which is not able to handle by NAV: spyware, trojan, exploit, ETC>
Look Mc Afee also add anti spyware
http://www.betanews.com/article/1089783343
if norton did not doit it will make norton name will be listed at down when there is review comparing all the antivirus in the market.
Score: 0
|Installed on 2 home PCs. XP SP2 b.2149
First machine, NAV would not update. "incorrect registry entry...reinstall". Took awhile to uninstall because "update was running in background". Had to reboot several times, nuking any NAV process I could find. Won't uninstall in safe mode either. Finally reinstalled, still won't do full udate due to "registry error" Registry entry it suggests to check is correct.
Second machine...C++ runtime error during install, wants to quit install. Finally choose ignore, install, reboot, and NAV is trying to Auto-Update but can't because update is running in background.
Disabled XP firewall as per NAV suggestion, drive mappings on both machines now only work sporadically.
I'll probably wipe both machines clean when SP2 goes RTM in a couple weeks. And I'll probably put NAV 2004 back on both machines.
Score: 0
|What kind of scam is Symantec trying to pull? On top of spending money for the product, they want users to disable the entire Windows Firewall for Norton's meaningless worm protection? What bothers me even more than what Symantec is doing but how BetaNews is telling users Norton is securing the perimeter when Symantec has done next to nothing to give the user the proper protection. Norton ranks as one of the worst products out there in detection, speed, response time, and support.
Score: 0
|Upgraded both machines to newer NAV build. (b.71)
Install was error-free, no problems with updates.
This on XP SP2 build 2162.
Still not crazy about Symantec's recommendation to disable XP firewall.
Does this mean that Symantec's own firewall product is now redundant and unnecessary?
Score: 0
|Symantec need to listen to the user:
Make the software more lighter.
Improve the detection of virus, trojan, exploit, spyware, etc.
Improve the live update. now the update is not efficient enough. it downloading too big preliminary list before it know what to do next. it need to be trimmed again.
and many other improvements.
Score: 0
|I have been a die-hard Symantec fan for as long as I can remember... However, over the past few years, I have grown more and more irritated by Symantec's behavior in terms of their consumer line of products.
The products installers are extremely buggy and ineffective at their task... Specifically, the Norton lineup has been plagued since the 2002 versions with install failures and the inability to automatically uninstall its own previous products when installing new versions, and even uninstalling their apps causes problems because it doesn't do a thorough job. That much is annoying in its own right, but consider this-- if a LiveUpdate corrupts one of the products somehow, such as an inability to shutdown and update a file that's in use, the whole install gets damaged and the only solution is a manual uninstall and reinstall.
Furthermore, their lineup has become more and more bloated by consuming more and more system resources (CPU and RAM consumed by running more processes) while offering only minimal feature benefits from those resources.
Now their new version not only conflicts with many 3rd party security applications (as I look over the other posts and reports on 2005 betas), but also with Windows itself, and they intend to blame Microsoft's firewall for their problems? While I totally acknowledge that Windows Firewall is intended strictly for incoming protection only (even its greatly improved, updated XPSP2 version), I will not accept that the bottom line is users and their security be damned unless you are strictly Symantec.
Thanks but no thanks, Symantec! I will stick with using Windows Firewall, ZoneAlarm, Sygate, and other vendors for my firewall needs, and although I will likely keep Symantec's Corporate Edition Antivirus for a while longer, rest assured I'll be looking at alternatives such as Panda, Kapersky, and others for future needs.
Symantec needs to learn how to play well with others again. Microsoft is finally doing what their customers have demanded from them for a long time. It's time for Symantec to step up to the plate and do the same thing... offer better, and offer it with positive incentive rather than criticizing their competitors and the OS-maker that essentialy creates their business!
Aaron
Score: 0
|PS-- In regards to the Security Center of XPSP2, Symantec has yet to issue an update to their products that allows SC to recognize their presence or their status. Hopefully they will do so by the time SP2 is finalized.
However, I will point out that when there is No Antivirus software detected at all, Microsoft's SC does provide a link to a web site discussing Antivirus needs and provides links to ALL of the major (and even some minor) Antivirus vendors, including Symantec. Likewise for the firewall settings, although of course it offers the immediate solution of enabling Windows Firewall.
Aaron
Score: 0
|Agreed. Digging the progy out after a bad install is like pulling teeth; it really, really, needs a lot of work.
Look, the only way to send them a messege is NOT to buy, or even use it! There are better choices, read my post on Trend Micro.
Score: 0
|Gave 2005b a try, still needs more work. The added worm protection or whatever, gives a popop everytime something tries to conenct to your computer. And you can't specify which programs to allow access, and you can't set rules such as always allow this program, always block that etc. So you have to deal with continous allow/deny popups >
Score: 0
|Once again a "big guy" company becomes complacent with its market share; focusing on its share holders and profits, and forgetting about what got them there. Case in point: the once valued Norton Utilities has been long considered a legacy product since Windows XP was released in 2001, and yet, they continue to release only superficial updates with little or no value.
We’re a small system builder who has the unfortunate experience of servicing hundreds of Spyware / Adware / Malware / Hijack infected PC’s a year. The first line of defense is proactively protecting today’s Internet users from the various Trojans that cause far too much of the damage.
Norton Antivirus does little or nothing, not only to protect from these, and all but ignores them during a full scan.
"I’m sick and tired of seeing PC’s with fully functional, and updated NAV (2003 and newer) infected with Trojans and worms that would have been easily caught with another product such as that by Trend Micro."
Having had more experience than I’d want to have, I can tell you after extensive testing; the only product that we now recommend is Trend Micro PC-cillin Internet Security. Take the same infected PC, and scan with Trend Micro, and you’ll discover (and remove) all of the infections NAV ignores. We’ve been using, recommending, and reselling Symantec products for years, both on the desktop, as well as the server level, but our primary responsibility is always to our clients.
We can not in good faith recommend NAV anymore. In fact, we’ve sent many emails to Symantec regarding this that has been to date, ignored. If you want to use the best possible defense for desktop PC, then you’ll want Trend Micro PC-cillin Internet Security. Any other product would put you at an unacceptable risk.
The only real drawback is that all of these security products feel the need to add their own version of a firewall. With the upcoming release of XP SP2, we’ll have a wait and see disposition as to whether they’re needed or not over the built in XP firewall or not. For now, we still use the XP firewall; disableing any 3rd party software.
J. Farulla, MCP
GRA Computers, Inc.
West Paterson, NJ
Score: 0
|I agree....forget NAV. Their intentions are good, but the beta was very frustrating as I found myself swearing left and right at it due to blocking many things I needed to have access to. I tried playing a game online, NAV tried blocking access to my PC. I tried swapping a file from one PC to mine and Norton locked up my PC saying it detected an intrusion and was trying to protect my PC. WTF kinda BS is that!?! I don't want Norton Internet Security and NAV in one product, that is what I have a firewall for. Hardware based firewalls are the better bet anyways. NAV surely doesn't have my vote this year!
Score: 0
|I used Norton 2001, 2002, 2003 and then I switched to McAfee. Although McAfee is not well know by consumers in retail stores they have a better security for virus and Trojans etc.... Still Norton has a better User Friendly than McAfee. I would not change from McAfee at all.
Score: 0
|NAV never me again. I LOVE Mcafee Spyware, Adware Detector. Plus Mcaffe has a malious port detector that can be customized.
NAV does not have that.
Score: 0
|Norton must try to make the resources use by Norton antivirus as low as possible. now many people are complaining about the performance problems they got.
if not many people will try to find other solutions.
Score: 0
|i already did. it's unbelievable how they can screw up such a good product. mcaffee 7.1 corporate is the one
Score: 0
|Same here. I've moved over to Zone Alarm Security Suite 5. Much lower resource usage than Norton.
Score: 0
|I'm using ZA 5 also with Norton Antivirus. Prior to ZA 5, I was using Norton Internet Security, but it's incompatible with ZA 5, so I disabled NIS, use ZA 5 with NAV and haven't had any problems.
I'd recommend (as even MS Slate did!) that people drop Internet Explorer because the script kiddies will continue to take advantage of it's flaws. The alternatives are even better.
Score: 0
|Please don't get started on the browser issues here.... it has nothing to do with Norton's betas. Furthermore, you can see by this link - http://secunia.com/search/?search=mozilla&w=1 - that there are just as many critical exploits for Mozilla variations as there are for IE. Competition is great, and browser variety is fine... but don't spread false advertisements about one browser being more secure than another when it all boils down to user competence when surfing the web and the intentions of malicious script-kiddies who will find exploits in anything and everything they can.
Score: 0
|Not going to get into this here, but you might want to rethink your browser statement again:
http://secunia.com/product/11/
http://secunia.com/product/3101/
For the record, I gave up NAV years ago, Kerio Personal Firewall gives me a level of protection that far exceeds anything else I've seen for a user-level system.
Score: 0
|I always liked Norton and never got infected with anything, but the resource issues talked about here (plus the install/uninstall problems also discussed here) finally turned me to PC-Cillin for antivirus and Sygate Pro for firewall. Both are much lighter on resources than Norton, PC-Cillin seems more reliable on updates and comprehensiveness and Sygate is infinitely more customizeable and trustworthy. I still have a soft spot for Norton after all these years but I hope they reverse their trend in recent years of releasing more bloated and less reliable products.
Score: 0
|