If a product cannot do the job, it is not worth using.
There are so many viruses and worms that can shut Norton
down and this alone makes it a liability.
Why bother with a free virus scanner if it has the same
fault? Who cares about update files? The scanning engine is
what counts and if it is not up to the job, its really
worthless. Dat files are nice for identifying the virus
after its released, not before.

If you want an antivirus that actually might catch a new
virus in the wild, try NOD32V2 or Panda. They have password
protection which makes them immune to many of the new worms
and viruses that are circulating. If you enable the password they can't be shut down without user interaction.
That alone makes these programs much more valuable than
NAV. NAV's scanning engine is slow and antiquated and uses
far too many resources. The only nice thing I can say about
NAV is that it is PRETTY. :-)

I agree. I have tried many antivirus programs and have settled on NOD32. It does virus protection and does not attempt to be all things to all people. Symantec makes things more complicated and less stable with every version. Look through their help site and see the many problems they must address with their software. It's all about advertising and deals with the major PC suppliers that keeps them at the top of the heap. It isn't about good software.

when maybe one in a hundred viruses is detected heuristically by one or two of the many, many AV programs out there, you can't seriously believe that update files are not important?

Check the stats on AV sites for what the most prevalent infections are - on sarc.com and several others Klez.H (April 17, 2002) is STILL listed among the top 5 in current infections. Obviously a lot of other people out there think the updates aren't important too - and look what happens... a virus for which detection was written more than 15 months ago is still proliferating.

"Heuristics" is trying to beat the virus writer to it, it is still based on known virus technology to a degree. It is important to have good heuristics in case you might be lucky enough to heuristically detect the latest virus, but up to date signature files will keep you protected from the tens of thousands of known viruses - and that's not down to LUCK.

My point - you need BOTH good heuristics AND up to date signatures.

They added password protection back in in 2003.

After trying the newest Norton beta, it's s*** but no need to upgrade if you have Norton 2003 which is socks.

Nice language you have there ;)

Been using Norton for years, but recently increasingly unhappy with it. Automatic updates just didn't seem to be happening! A month ago, took the plunge, and changed over to Panda Platinum 7. Installed it at home and at work on the network. Very happy with the result. Extremely happy. Anyone else have any feedback?

As an EXPERT in the field of anti-virus bypass, I will explain to you all once and only once that Norton AntiVirus is the WORST antivirus that was ever created by air-breathing humanoids. Although the statement "better then nothing" holds true, NAV on a scale of 1 to 10 of "better then nothing" would be a SOLID "1". Listen very closely now my friends, if you use NAV you're giving yourself a FALSE sence of protection. That is a 100% guarantee from yours truly and I would put my own LIFE on that.

NAV has no "huristic technology" as they falsely claim, nor does it have the capability to detect programs that have been "packed" with executable packers such as the famous UPX or AsPack. Bypassing NAV in fact wouldn't even REQUIRE those programs, instead a few bytes changed at the end of the "malicious program" with any hex-editor would automatically render NAV powerless to detect it.

Another thing, STOP eating all the BULLCRAP marketing hype from Symantec PLEASE. Your safety depends on it. Symantec in my eyes was once a RESPECTED name so don't get me wrong. But my blissfully naive friends, that is unfortunately NO LONGER the case these days. It's just CRAP bloatware.

-good luck and start using an AV software that bases itself on the AVG antivirus signatures. Again, not perfect but THOUSANDS of times better then norton.

Sorry to say, I posted a positive result on this initialey but after spotting is usage and memeory hogging, its pants and I removed it.

Really Symantec need to handle this programs system demands in the form of resources, it eats em up. I recommend PC-Cillin, its fast, doesnt use much resources and cheaper i think. Since Peter Norton sold the tech to this company its gone from good to bad. Its not a good move

This has been the main complaint about NAV (or SAV, whatever you wanna call it) for years.

Sure, ALL AV is a resource hog, it's the nature of the beast. But Symantec's AV products are by far the worst in this arena (and don't get me started on System Works and System Doctor - they hung my previously perfectly stable machine with predictable frequency!).

What I want to know is why Symantec need 50+MB to do the same task the average AV program can do using a 6-13MB application?

What I've done in the past when my subscription runs out is buy an older version from one of the online discount software stores. It's usually quite a bit cheaper than even the annual virus update subscription renewal fee.

If Symantec was truly hurting or worried about people doing it, they would block the fact that you could simply uninstall, remove all registry entries and re-install for another year. Easily done with mandatory activation/registration. Not exactly the honest thing to do, but hey...they know people do it and like I said, if they were concerned about it, they could very easily block that (if they are not doing it for 2004 already)

Norton is easily one of the best (if not the best) antivirus programs around. It is one of the very few virus scanners that offer AUTOMATIC and INCREMENTAL updates of new virus definitions.
EZ Antivirus has a horrible track record.
AVG has a mediocre record and no INCREMENTAL updates. It is questionable how long this will stay free.
Avast has no resident monitor. You must execute a virus before it will recognize it is even there.
Kaspersky is excellent but a resource hog and has a difficult user interface.
McAfee is good if it doesn't freeze your system.
RAV is lite and excellent and has been recently purchased by Microsoft.
NOD32 2 is VERY interesting.

Kaspersky AV has a new 4.5 version which is not a resource hog anymore. And this is only the beginning as I heard. New 5.0 will have a new interface.

Correction: you could almost say MOST vendors include automatic updating. Those who don't are being left behind in market share. And more and more vendors are offering incremental updates, but this is not necessarily the "best" option.

Often incremental updates are merely a "holding over" of signatures for viruses considered to be less of a threat. Which is fine if you aren't one of the unlucky users who gets hit by one of the less prolific viruses released today.

When you see "daily updates" advertised as a feature, you should do your homework (email their sales or tech staff if need be) and find out if viruses signatures are always released when available.

IMHO, the better vendors are those who release a "daily update" whenever there is a new virus. ie, if no new viruses are reported for a given day, no update is released. Vendors who tell you there will be a release EVERY SINGLE DAY are probably holding over those "less important" updates. All smoke and mirrors. But always ask, because often that "better" kind of vendor will use the term "daily updates" anyway.

McAfee is great in detection but often misses the mark in the false positive department - anyone who uses Hotmail can probably attest to that - send some attachments you KNOW are virus-free from your work address to your Hotmail acct. If McAfee can't handle the file it returns a false positive. But other than that, it's a fairly reliable product.

I used NAV before and every year it's gotten worse. More system resources being used and longer scans. Dollar for dollar the best anti-virus software you can get is EZ Antivirus. The download is small (3MB). It uses less then 4 MB or memory. System scans are short. Virus updates are available almost everyday. Norton updates its virus defs. one a week at best. While NAV does provide more features, EZ does what a AV program should do, catch viruses.

"More system resources being used and longer scans."
Get more RAM and stop whinging - RAM is absolutely dirt cheap so if you're worried about a couple of meg being used whilst a scan is in process, get some more! As for the longer scans, have you ever given thought that maybe it's scanning your files more thoroughly? No?

"System scans are short"
Maybe that's because it misses half your files, maybe that's because it doesn't scan inside your compressed files - either way it's either not scanning as much or as thoroughly.

"EZ does what a AV program should do, catch viruses."
I'm afraid that AV are meant to do a lot more than simply catch viruses. If you just want something to catch viruses get McAffee - it'll catch almost anything, good luck when it comes to it then being able to clean the virus without having to delete your infected files! NAV can at least clean the majority of the viruses it finds.

I agree. Companies like Microsoft are currently standardized on eTrust AV v7. It's the best AV for your money. If you would like a free trial, give me a call. 800-656-6020 ext. 7907. Ask for Ian

"Get more RAM and stop whinging"
Do you think all NAV customers have plenty money like you do? Stop thinking that this world full of hipocrate and money-eater like you do. Better if you willing to open a session which giving away RAM - however fool this sound, will you?

"Maybe that's because it misses half your files, maybe..."
I don't know very well about EZ or eTrust, but I know Kaspersky AV, and it HAS shorter system scan, and tell me here that you argue that KAV does not scan compressed or zipped files... I dare you. ;)

"I'm afraid that AV are meant to do a lot more than simply catch viruses."
I just realised that you are supporting BLOATware and full of sh**it software just like AOL.

*sigh*

Norton updates once a week at best? Where do you get that from, as it is blatantly untrue. I use it here and use the Corporate version at work and there are updates whenever a new virus comes out. Sometimes once a week if there are not many new ones, sometimes once a day, it just depends what is happening at the time. Norton *DO* make some junk, just look at SystemWorks, should be SystemNOLONGERWorks for how much it slows PC's down, but NAV is very good and will protect better than just about any other software

"Do you think all NAV customers have plenty money like you do?"
What part of "RAM is absolutely dirt cheap" did you not comprehend? 128Meg of RAM costs what... $15US? 256Meg costs $30US. Are you HONESTLY going to tell me that the Norton customers who paid (and therefore could afford) $50US for Norton (or $70US for the Professional version) can't afford an additional $15-$30US to benefit their whole computer? Sorry I don't buy it. The whole "it uses too much ram" line is nothing more than a whinge. If you can't afford some more ram then don't perform a full scan of your system whilst running every other application on your computer at the same time rather than whinging about a few meg of ram being used for a few minutes.

"and tell me here that you argue that KAV does not scan compressed or zipped files"
I said "maybe". I don't know if it does or not, but if the time is significantly different then you can be sure that either one is more optimized than the other or it's not performing as deep a scan! I don't have anything bad to say about KAV, I like it, but I just prefer Norton and have done so for many many years as it has consistently come through as being the one anti-virus that can not only scan well but then fix the files as well.

"I just realised that you are supporting BLOATware and full of sh**it software just like AOL."
Keep your "deep thoughts" to yourself. If you don't like Norton that's fine. If you have no particular reasons for not liking it, that's fine too. But don't start spreading FUD about it being bloatware because you don't have more than 32Meg of RAM on your system!

I have heard this too, from various sources - all NAV users or former users, licensed users, not pirate users. Perhaps it depends on the particular product or license?

But to say that it protects "better than just about any other product" is an equally untrue comment, especially from anyone involved in selection of AV software for a corporate site.

If you do your homework on INDEPENDENT AV testing, you will find that the majority of products that have been around for more than a couple of years all manage to pass the major recognised industry certifications. And when one normally reasonable product "fails", usually a number of them do.

I am not saying you are not entitled to your opinion which PREFERS NAV. There are many factors which impact on choice of software - performance, price, choice, ease of use, required learning (the administrator being familiar with a product and confident in its use is a huge advantage to that vendor), frequency of updates, footprint, cost of support, quality of support (esp response time), administrator control, configuration options, and the list goes on...

So why are names like Norton, McAfee, etc the so-called "most trusted" names in AV? it is because they are the most heavily MARKETED, with the most money spent on branding. They also have an advantage in many markets by having entered those markets earlier. Another reason they proliferate is the number of significant OEM deals with the major PC manufacturers. Isn't it funny how so many people trust advertising far more than research? An OEM licence is just a free sample - an excellent form of advertising - and you can get a free sample of virtually any AV online!

NAV is probably the worst system hog (as a generalisation) and performs in-line with its peers in virus detection, sometimes better, sometimes worse. Almost any AV vendor can tell you when they had their "day in the sun", being the first to heuristically detect the [insertnamehere] virus.

Of AV resellers that I have spoken to who are seeking to change the product they recommend, NAV is the product most are looking to replace. This would be closely followed by those who wish to get away from VET (poster is in Australia) since CA bought it and tried to force corporate VET users over to Innoculate.

Way to go, an unbiased recommendation from a reseller!

What part of "RAM is absolutely dirt cheap" did you not comprehend? 128Meg of RAM costs what... $15US? 256Meg costs $30US. Are you HONESTLY going to tell me that the Norton customers who paid (and therefore could afford) $50US for Norton (or $70US for the Professional version) can't afford an additional $15-$30US to benefit their whole computer? Sorry I don't buy it. The whole "it uses too much ram" line is nothing more than a whinge.

>> Dude, you miss the point entirely. It's not about whether people can or can't afford the extra RAM; it's about whether they SHOULD HAVE TO AFFORD IT. Sorry dude but other AV apps can do all that NAV does with a smaller footprint and lesser system requirements. But sure, if a sizeable org has already committed financially to NAV, then it is most likely a more sensible option to upgrade their RAM than change their AV.

If you can't afford some more ram then don't perform a full scan of your system whilst running every other application on your computer at the same time rather than whinging about a few meg of ram being used for a few minutes.

> Sure, we all run our AV scans with every other app running - NOT. It doesn't matter how much RAM you have, unless there is a reason to suspect you have a virus, don't run a scan during time you want to be productive. Run it in your lunch break or after hours. Set up a scheduled scan. More RAM might keep it from falling over but no amount of RAM is going to make it perform to an acceptable level through a full HDD scan.

"and tell me here that you argue that KAV does not scan compressed or zipped files"
I said "maybe". I don't know if it does or not, but if the time is significantly different then you can be sure that either one is more optimized than the other or it's not performing as deep a scan!

> Yes and no. In most cases "optimized" means skipping something - excluding file types or not scanning compressed files or within archives. Few AV products will scan within mail archives for example. I recently tested one AV product (a version recommended for home use) and found that there was no option to scan "all files". That program had default lists for included/excluded file types. Sure it performed a fast scan, but the average home user wouldn't know which file types should be included/excluded - and what happens if it's a rare or new file type that is infected? I also tested two other products in the same test, both set to scan all files and within archives etc. One took more than 40% longer to perform the same scan - and we're only talking about 9Gb of data.

I don't have anything bad to say about KAV, I like it, but I just prefer Norton and have done so for many many years as it has consistently come through as being the one anti-virus that can not only scan well but then fix the files as well.

> Perhaps you should say "the one antivirus in my experience which has..."? NAV is not alone in those stakes. But I will grant them this, they are prompt in releasing removal tools which work for viruses such as Bugbear which require a registry hack to fully remove - but then it can be argued that a tool which hacks your registry could be dangerous despite the best intentions...

"I just realised that you are supporting BLOATware and full of sh**it software just like AOL."
Keep your "deep thoughts" to yourself. If you don't like Norton that's fine. If you have no particular reasons for not liking it, that's fine too. But don't start spreading FUD about it being bloatware because you don't have more than 32Meg of RAM on your system!

>> Somewhere, someone in this thread said that AV products are meant to do MORE than detect viruses. NO! Detect and disinfect (wherever possible) is the primary function. Sure you want reporting and options of what to do with infected files and central administration - and these are pretty much essential for a network admin. But an AV program doesn't HAVE TO perform the functions of a firewall, or do system/file integrity checks, etc. These are useful, but not essential functions. If you don't need them in your AV, you can use a smaller app which is less demanding and more efficient.

hmmm happened to be looking at info on Yaha virus at sarc.com and noticed this......

"Intelligent Updater virus definitions are released daily, but require manual download and installation.
Click here to download manually.

**
LiveUpdate virus definitions are usually released every Wednesday.
Click here for instructions on using LiveUpdate."

So, yes, NAV is updated only weekly using the automatic update from the desktop ("Live! Update").

If you run a management tool or script to automatically pull down the "intelligent updates", you can have it daily... but you have to set that up yourself.

So for the average home user, SOHO and SME, I'm guessing they're getting weekly updates. simply not good enough IMHO.

I used NAV before and every year it's gotten worse. More system resources being used and longer scans. Dollar for dollar the best anti-virus software you can get is EZ Antivirus. The download is small (3MB). It uses less then 4 MB or memory. System scans are short. Virus updates are available almost everyday. Norton updates its virus defs. one a week at best. While NAV does provide more features, EZ does what a AV program should do, catch viruses.

Norton finds 90% of the Viri, so it will miss 10%?

No thanks I'll pass on that and save on the 15% CPU slowdown due to NAV.

Here is a test of all the AV products around:

http://www.virus.gr/engl...lt.asp?id=59&mnu=59

My experience with Norton AV is very bad. I have never used it for myself prefering NOD32 and PC-cillin. But as software developer and SysOp I have been asked by many private people in my neighbourhood to look at their virus invested computers, and all those computers that were so invested were running Norton AV, so my advice has been of late use about any virus protection, but Norton and McAffee. My opinnion is that once they were the best sat down on their laurels, and slowly became among the worst scanners.

i've seen the same thing, except that all of the computers i've cleaned haven't had their virus defs updated. both mcafee and NAV are given free with computers, but they usually only have a 3 month trial or something. dial-up customers don't want to waste their bandwidth downloading new defs each week so they turn off or cancel auto-updates. then when the get attacked by a virus they update their definitions but the virus has already knocked out the scanning capability.

Exact and to the point! An anti-virus program is only effective as it is up to date. Some people are unaware, once the liveupdate subscription passes, no new virus definitions are added NOTWITHSTANDING continued use of liveupdate. Symantec COULD give a conspicuous notice during liveupdate attempts to the effect, "YOUR LIVEUPDATE SUBSCRIPTION IS EXPIRED, AND YOU ARE NOT PROTECTED AGAINST LATEST VIRUSES." But, I think their program is second to none, and one of the finest antivirus scanners around. In my personal experience, it has weeded out malware and spyware laden java pages (which are more common than you think), seemingly harmless email attachments (which have macro viruses embedded for example), and protected me from dodgy downloads. Having beta tested 2004 beta, I am inclined to agree with the author that Symantec has not presented a compelling reason to upgrade from 2003 over a liveupdate subscription renewal.

Although I've made it clear I'm not at all a fan of either of these, it is unlikely that they are poor performers in the detection stakes.

In most such infection cases you will find that the user is either not keeping their signatures up to date, has changed a signicant setting (such as "scan all files" set to "scan specified files"), has been using an unpatched version of Microsoft Outlook Express (which allowed several viruses such as Klez to circumvent AV processes and execute without even "opening" the email), or has been using an old product and faithfully keeping their signatures up to date in a product which can't support those signatures properly.

The real problems in these cases are
1. user ignorance - not understanding the need to update signatures and engines, not understanding the implications of changing settings, expecting that an AV product should plug all the holes in another vendor (in this case Microsoft) product, not understanding the need to keep on top of their MS security updates.
2. MS releasing products with such holes and often appearing to deny their existence until a virus attack PROVES the flaw.
3. AV vendors offering cheap renewal of signature updates (to retain market share and ongoing revenue) without OVERTLY making users aware of the need to upgrade. Are they afraid that USD$30 would make the user re-evaluate their options? (you can buy some products for that or less in the first year!). OF COURSE THEY ARE! And if the unwitting out-of-date user gets infected, vendor then charges for support and politely instructs the user to buy the upgraded version for future protection - nice way to increase revenue!

For mine, I prefer products which may charge a little more than USD$10 or $20 for annual renewal but automatically include all new versions of the product in the licensing. Such products usually include free tech support too.

IMHO, the USA is the home of big names and big marketing campaigns. Some of the best products and technology in AV are coming from countries with an ability to think outside the Microsoft box and the Microsoft revenue generation (oops, sorry, "licensing") models.

hmm..

I never had any problems with my Norton Antivirus program. I would say, try it out and if you like it, stick with it.

Just stick with a free virus scanner like AVG or Avast, they are just as good as Norton or Mcafee. Also avg and avast do not take as many system resources so you can still have them running when you play games, or edit large graphics etc.

Dont invest in this program, its really not work it.

So how does this compare now that Microsoft has antivirus coming out soon too?

Is this some form of a joke ? Microsoft (Anti-Security) and Antivirus in the same phrase? What a joke .. if ANYONE can develop a worse Antivirus that does more damage, takes more resources then Mcafee, its Microsoft.

If by chance MS developes a better antivirus solution than the others you will in turn say it's because they have the unfair advantage of access to the full Windows code base. better. You appear to be just another one of the countless MS bashers that are attracted to these sorts of forums.

That's sooooo true riekl...you da man!

Ummm, I know I'm going to get slammed for supporting you, so if you have any facts to back up your remarks (and I'm like totally confident your do) pass them on?

Thanks Dude! You is totally da man!

I remember reading somewhere that MS is designing LongHorn to give antivirus companies more direct access to the files. As far as having the inside scoop on how the insides of Windows works, MS probably knows best and will have the software that best interfaces with its own o/s. It would be nice though if everyone had the same access to how the API's work because it would give an equal playing field for the MS inhouse developers and 3rd party developers.

Microsoft in my opinion will have a good anti-virus software for its OSs. The anti-virus software the company already makes is good. Now, they will have lots of $$$ to
improve on the virus engine and the interface of the virus program. Only time will tell, if it will sink or swim.

Just remember when they came out with IE 1.0. It wasn't the best, but it got there after a few years. I think they will have a very good product within 3 years in my opinion.

I doubt that MS would give up much in the way of source so these 3rd party Antivirus companies can compete with the Microsoft Virus program. Besides, MS is coming up with some new type of file system anyhow with Longhorn. Sounds like Antivirus code writers have their work cut out for them.

microsoft is a virus,what's it going to do when it scans itself. bluescreen

jejejejej you guys are too funny:)
I am guessing most of you actualy keep a library of Virus,
worms, ttojans, worms and keyloggers?
if not, you should try it and compare the various programs out there. I know Norton, KAV and NOD32 v 2.0 TDS 3.0 are all good
Please don't forget the layered defence.
ask this question.
If you install a keylogger and you allow your outlook full acces to the net, will your programs tell you if an outgoing connection is being made?
I can tell you for a fact if you have Nortons splash screen set to kick on for any incomming or outgoing attemps, you will soon see a keylogger sending mail with your outlook without the outlook program even opening at all
No other Av does this.
SO , if you are going to reply to this post, please download a kwylogger, install it on your system and see if norton alerts you as to the outgoing connection.

con