# How good is your Anti-Virus software? PC Virus Protection 2010 Report results



## Lanks (Mar 9, 2010)

Check out this news report : http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/internet-security/278428/pc-anti-virus-report-wins-industry-approval

Dennis Technology Labs did a lot of testing on the worlds major anti-virus companies software to find out how the faired against threats. The graph below show's their final results.

Full report if you're interested in the test's is here


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

It's interesting they were using Microsoft Security Essentials* (beta)*, that's been gone for at least 7-8 months now.


----------



## antech (Feb 23, 2010)

BTW,
is anyone sure that the reults are *REAL AND FAIR* and not affliated to any product?


----------



## jiml8 (Jul 3, 2005)

Well, the test was sponsored by Symantec.

So, therefore, I am sure it is only a coincidence (or else, evidence of the True Superiority of Norton) that the Symantec product came out on top. There is, of course, no possibility that the test was in any way biased.


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

Taking the graph at face value:
Norton is itself a virus, its slows even the most robust machines almost to a point to make it unusable, forces an upgrade when your license runs out by locking everything down (No internet to search for alternatives) and frequently causes issues. And how does McAfee get a negative score, surely it found something, even if they did test against 2009.


----------



## Mumbodog (Oct 3, 2007)

loserOlimbs said:


> Taking the graph at face value:
> Norton is itself a virus, .


:up::up::up:

.


----------



## techkid (Sep 2, 2004)

jiml8 said:


> Well, the test was sponsored by Symantec.
> 
> So, therefore, I am sure it is only a coincidence (or else, evidence of the True Superiority of Norton) that the Symantec product came out on top. There is, of course, no possibility that the test was in any way biased.


Just because some Dennis Technology Labs employees got some significant, one-off pay rises, doesn't mean there was anything shifty going on .

It was an interesting read, but I think I will stick with my sub-par AVG.


----------



## guy2 (Apr 30, 2009)

Avira all the way ,Norton ,it's nothing but bloatware to me it's always pre installed on all the windows installation disk ,maybe people think it's so good because it's always shoved in their faces and hard to get rid of with out software tools like revo.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

Actually, the Norton Removal Tool will nuke it quite nicely, I keep it around for that purpose.


----------



## JustJudy (Apr 4, 2006)

I wish they tested AVG internet security 2010- the paid for version... I am curious


----------



## Lanks (Mar 9, 2010)

It is funny that Norton came out on top, considering the test's were sponsored by Symantec  Norton used to be good, but now it takes up so many resources and doe's slow things down.

That Norton removal tool is handy, why do they do that? 

I used to use Kaspersky, which always gets good reviews and you dont even notice it running.


----------



## ErrorProxy (Aug 16, 2008)

I hope this isn't correct... I use Bitdefender.

I wish someone would do an unbiased test.


----------



## antech (Feb 23, 2010)

I dont think an unbiased test will wvewr tale place.....ErrorProxy.
Don't you all agree that Mcafee is also an infection?


----------



## Lanks (Mar 9, 2010)

antech said:


> Don't you all agree that Mcafee is also an infection?


 From my experience, Mcafee has always been the worst, i dont know how they can charge £20+ for a copy, free anti-virus is better


----------



## Wino (Dec 1, 2001)

I dropped McAfee probably 10 years ago. Used Norton AV resource hog last about 5-6 years ago and probably still would had they not gotten so greedy on yearly AV subscriptions. Now using free AVG, Avast & Windows Essentials (the latter within recent months). No complaints on any of the three. Being careful online and with incoming emails these are adequate. Having said that, running naked with Ubuntu which I use online, but not for emails. Other than ad and an occasional malware, no virus for many a moon on any Windoz machines.

I have cleaned up some other peoples machines that had some real nasty boogers, but once you're able to get into their OS (if ever) and see where they web visit and their attitude of opening anything that comes into their email you know why they have problems. My minimum is $150 for this work - CASH, if they want their machine back.


----------



## antech (Feb 23, 2010)

I said that thing in a thread and all of 'em blamed and pestered me!


----------



## win2kpro (Jul 19, 2005)

Although I pay little attention to published AV tests this is the best one I have found.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

This is the latest published report as of February 2010

http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_report25.pdf

I personally have been using NOD32 on all my machines and my customers machines supplemented with Malwarebytes and Superantispyware and neither myself or my customers have had any problems.

About 60% of my business is cleaning infected machines and data recovery. On the machines with viral infections I find more viral infections on machines running McAfee (retail) and AVG free version. I would expect more infections with AVG free since it is free and quite a few people run it, however I find lots of infections with the McAfee retail version proportionately higher than with AVG.

I am certainly not a fan of Symantec, but I have installed Norton 2010 on a couple of machines (at the owners request) and it does seem to do a good job (at this point) and is not near as much of a memory hog as the previous versions.


----------



## Mumbodog (Oct 3, 2007)

win2kpro said:


> Although I pay little attention to published AV tests this is the best one I have found.
> 
> http://www.av-comparatives.org/
> 
> ...


You also have to take in to consideration which AVs the malware authors target to disable, I am sure they aim at larger vendors. Some say you are better off running lesser known Av software the malware won't attack and disable.

I run a corporate version of AVG and have never had an infection (3yrs), I wonder if it is a different engine than the free version.

Thanks for links.

.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I've been running Microsoft Security Essentials since the early beta, it's done very well here. It's found a few things coming in, but AFAIK, nothing has slipped by it.


----------



## Blackmirror (Dec 5, 2006)

avg and malwarebytes

no virus for ages


----------



## ErrorProxy (Aug 16, 2008)

JohnWill said:


> I've been running Microsoft Security Essentials since the early beta, it's done very well here. It's found a few things coming in, but AFAIK, nothing has slipped by it.


Woah.. I wanna try it.. is it better than Bitdefender? As in using less power or more security?


----------



## ErrorProxy (Aug 16, 2008)

Hey wait there's this : http://www.av-comparatives.org/


----------



## dotty999 (Feb 3, 2006)

I have MSE and it scores highly on the above tests, overall better than AVG and Bit Defender, it has a clear interface and is simple to use, also, I find it doesn't conflict with any of my other programmes like previous AV's have.


----------



## win2kpro (Jul 19, 2005)

I know this isn't really germane to this discussion regarding AV programs, however if you keep a couple of clean, up to date images on external media you don't have to worry about being "whacked" by malware, hard drive failure, etc.

*NOTHING* takes the place of back-ups.


----------



## antech (Feb 23, 2010)

You are somehow right,but.............
Backups can also be infected.
BTW,
I use SAS,MalwareBytes and Kaspersky in a combo.
I think no virus,malware or any other malicious code is any to passout through this.
99% of total infections except rootkits are covered by these programs.
Personally,ESET lacks a proper firewall but it is covered by Kaspersky.
Kaspersky Pure surely has a robust one!


----------



## Lanks (Mar 9, 2010)

JohnWill said:


> I've been running Microsoft Security Essentials since the early beta, it's done very well here. It's found a few things coming in, but AFAIK, nothing has slipped by it.


I think Securit Essentials is good, like what dotty said, it doesnt really conflict as it's Microsoft's own, i think it's a good program :up:


----------



## Lanks (Mar 9, 2010)

Blackmirror said:


> avg and malwarebytes
> 
> no virus for ages


I really like malware bytes, it's quite quick at scanning, and even though it's free, i've used it quite a bit when cleaning up computers


----------



## Lanks (Mar 9, 2010)

win2kpro said:


> I know this isn't really germane to this discussion regarding AV programs, however if you keep a couple of clean, up to date images on external media you don't have to worry about being "whacked" by malware, hard drive failure, etc.
> 
> *NOTHING* takes the place of back-ups.


What program do you use to back up your data?

I do a backup every month usually to an external disk, but only copying files (pictures/music etc) not an actual image of my pc. And every now and then, i get to back it all up to dvd's, yes it takes a while but dvd's are quite robust i think


----------



## Lanks (Mar 9, 2010)

antech said:


> You are somehow right,but.............
> Backups can also be infected.
> BTW,
> I use SAS,MalwareBytes and Kaspersky in a combo.
> ...


Antech, do you find Kaspersky, on default setting's, blocked a few things, i remember first getting it, installing it and then trying to listen to the radio and i couldn't


----------



## win2kpro (Jul 19, 2005)

lanks2010 said:


> What program do you use to back up your data?


I use Acronis True Image and back up to externals. Since I have multiple machines and multiple externals I alternate the destination drive. I do weekly full iimages of my main machine so at any time I may have 3 or 4 images to choose from.
I spend about 1-2 hours a week making back-ups of my main machine, but while I'm backing up I can be using one of the other machines during that time so it's not like I have to waste time waiting for a back-up and validate to complete.

Since my really important files are on "My Documents" I also make a separate back-up (not image) of the "My Documents" folder. I also have some separate back-ups on CDs and DVDs of pinouts, drivers, etc.


----------



## Lanks (Mar 9, 2010)

win2kpro said:


> I use Acronis True Image and back up to externals. Since I have multiple machines and multiple externals I alternate the destination drive. I do weekly full iimages of my main machine so at any time I may have 3 or 4 images to choose from.
> I spend about 1-2 hours a week making back-ups of my main machine, but while I'm backing up I can be using one of the other machines during that time so it's not like I have to waste time waiting for a back-up and validate to complete.
> 
> Since my really important files are on "My Documents" I also make a separate back-up (not image) of the "My Documents" folder. I also have some separate back-ups on CDs and DVDs of pinouts, drivers, etc.


That program looks good, thanks mate. Its only £26.85 on Amazon too.  I do need some proper software to keep everything safe so when i've got some money... i'll look into getting it. Thanks again :up:


----------



## antech (Feb 23, 2010)

Recently switched to MSE as Kaspersky Pure was a resource hog.
The second product by Microsoft I appreciate --> MSE


----------



## Juli007 (Feb 22, 2010)

> Well, the test was sponsored by Symantec.


Thats why norton is the first


----------



## new tech guy (Mar 27, 2006)

Hm, I have been using avast free for some time now on my machines, just has the perfect balance, good detection and VERY low resource consumption. (Maybe about 20-40mb resident and almost no cpu, even on paranoid mode) It has kept all of my machines virus free and has for some time now. However, i am slightly concerned with how the software runs under a x64 environment as i notice all of the av processes are marked as 32 bit which leaves me wondering if the 64 bit layer is being adequately protected. Therefore for reasons of that and sheer simplicity i am considering the switch to microsoft security essentials. I do notice it is a little resource hungry at times (usually updating though i believe a lot tend to burn a little resource when updating). I wonder though, if the security essentials program updates, its fair enough for definitions but what about the program? Will it automatically update the program as well or just the definitions? 

As far as i see with these so called av "comparatives", i typically dont read them. All they show me is a bunch of junk they threw at them and a table of what they found/did not find, also as stated most are sponsored and oddly enough, the sponsor always is on top of the list. therefore its biased. To really know how well an ant ivirus is going to protect a user you have to set it up on a production machine and just use it in your day to day tasks. That is how you know how strong/weak an anti virus is. If nothing ever happens, great. If you do get problems, then maybe its time for a new anti virus.


----------



## Simon_Edwards (May 25, 2010)

Hello everyone,

My name is Simon Edwards. I am Technical Director of Dennis Technology Labs, the testing organisation that performed the comparative test of anti-virus software you are discussing.

While it is true that Symantec paid us to perform the test, it is absolutely untrue that the test was biased in order to provide a good result for the sponsor.

Please take a look at the actual news story that started this thread, rather than making assumptions. It was not an announcement of yet another anti-virus test. It disclosed that the anti-virus industry actually supported anti-virus test results we produced *last year* (which is why the Microsoft product we tested was in beta).

This means that companies including Symantec, McAfee, Trend Micro, Panda, Kaspersky, ESET and Webroot all agreed that the way Dennis Technology Labs (DTL) tested complied 100 per cent with how a fair test should be conducted.

DTL (along with just about every anti-virus vendor in the world) is a member of the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organisation (AMTSO). AMTSO publishes a set of principles that testers must adhere to. These include:

* Testing must be unbiased
* Testing should be reasonably open and transparent

There are, in total, nine testing principles (some of them are a bit technical - those above are probably of most interest). AMTSO's Review board found that DTL complied with all of them.

If you take the time to read our report(1) and AMTSO's response(2) you should find that your concerns about bias, testing methods and so on are unfounded. *This was not just another anti-virus test.* It is an industry-accepted test supported even by companies whose products performed quite poorly.

1. (http://www.dennistechnologylabs.com/reports/s/a-m/symantec/DTL_PCVirusProtection2010_2.pdf)
2. (http://www.amtso.org/uploads/20100506-amtso-rab-dtl-report.pdf)


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

Hi all,

The best and most independent comparison of AVs can be found at AV Comparatives.

All readers of this thread should compare Dennis Technologies Labs Report with AV Comparatives results to see for themselves how AVs stack up.

-- Tom


----------



## Mumbodog (Oct 3, 2007)

Simon_Edwards said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> My name is Simon Edwards. I am Technical Director of Dennis Technology Labs, the testing organisation that performed the comparative test of anti-virus software you are discussing.
> 
> While it is true that Symantec paid us to perform the test, it is absolutely untrue that the test was biased in order to provide a good result for the sponsor.


Never going to buy that, ever. Everyone knows how bad Norton is, no secret here. Norton is just running a PR campaign using your company, thats all!

Only trust totally Independent testing.

.


----------



## Simon_Edwards (May 25, 2010)

Mumbodog said:


> Everyone knows how bad Norton is


I think it would be fair to say that this is a biased and outdated statement. If you read further than this line you might discover why 

Symantec's Norton range has certainly performed poorly, both in terms of system performance and detection, for some years. However, for the last two years the product comprised completely new code so essentially it is a different product. Anyone who understands security software knows that the good products are dynamic code, which changes frequently.

You might be surprised to find that other testers have also found vast improvements in the Norton products. The latest AV Comparatives test, which works quite differently to ours and was not sponsored as far as I know, rated Norton AntiVirus 2010 top for speed, in the top group for sample detection and in the lowest group for generating false positives. This is at odds with your contention that everyone knows it is bad software.

Now, the AV Comparatives test in this case works differently to ours. It scans files on a hard disk, while we actually exposed systems to live internet threats. This makes our test about as realistic as it gets. I suggest you read the report to see the details about how we test; read AMTSO's report to see why we are unbiased; and then you will be able to make an informed decision about the results. Does that sound fair?

Regards,
Simon


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

Perhaps most users of Norton AV do not know how to configure the Norton software for their platform. I would guess that most of them never read any documentation about it.

-- Tom


----------



## jiml8 (Jul 3, 2005)

Simon_Edwards said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> My name is Simon Edwards. I am Technical Director of Dennis Technology Labs, the testing organisation that performed the comparative test of anti-virus software you are discussing.
> 
> ...


I read those papers before I commented. I commented anyway, and I wasn't commenting randomly. Norton sucks. Maybe - perhaps - it does a good job of stopping viruses, but its impact on the overall system is so enormous that in many cases the poor sap whose system is infected would be better off with the malware rather than with Norton.


----------



## jiml8 (Jul 3, 2005)

> You might be surprised to find that other testers have also found vast improvements in the Norton products. The latest AV Comparatives test, which works quite differently to ours and was not sponsored as far as I know, rated Norton AntiVirus 2010 top for speed, in the top group for sample detection and in the lowest group for generating false positives. This is at odds with your contention that everyone knows it is bad software.


Everyone DOES know that it is bad software. If that knowledge is out of date, then it is fairly recently out of date and Norton hasn't done a good job of convincing anyone that they've cleaned up their package.

I haven't used it for years because it sucked so badly and was so difficult to configure the way I wanted it configured, and as recently as a month ago I removed it from a friend's machine in order to solve his grindingly slow system issue (though IIRC, that was the 2006 version).


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Simon_Edwards said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> My name is Simon Edwards. I am Technical Director of Dennis Technology Labs, the testing organisation that performed the comparative test of anti-virus software you are discussing.
> 
> ...


Hello Simon_Edwards......welcome and thank you for taking the time to address your tests here at TSG.

What interested me about your testing procedure was the comparison of security packages versus standalone anti virus 
applications. I missed reading in your tests what firewalls were provided for anti virus apps like MSE, Avast and Avg.
With modern firewalls providing more than just address filtering, the comparisons from your tests seem biased to me.

BTW....what firewall/s were used with those standalone anti virus apps?

This is the only mention I saw on a search of the pdfs you posted:


> Free anti-virus programs compete strongly with commercial products
> The test includes four free anti-virus programs. These are free to download, install and use for non-
> commercial purposes. They lack firewall protection, which is provided by all of the commercial products.
> However, the results show that it is possible to get better protection when using a free program than by
> paying for certain other products.


IMO....a better test would have been only standalone anti-virus applications installed with out firewalls.
And the Norton brand is available as a standalone anti-virus application.
So it's difficult for me to put a lot of stock in your comparisons.

Jack Stone.


----------



## new tech guy (Mar 27, 2006)

I feel that an antivirus should not only be scored on how well some pre defined tests are. The vector of attack is meaningless, what matters is how well the system finds a vulnerability or a active threat on any vector. Not just some predefined stuff you decided to throw at an army of antiviruses to see how they stack up. What matters is, when i turn on my computer, open firefox, and punch a url in....am I going to be protected? If something tries to penetrate my machine, will my software throw an alert? Also, along with security there should be a matter of simplicity. How complicated is the software to use? Are the default settings what an advanced user would consider a proper way to set up the machine? 

Perfect example of simplicity:
I just finished a job for someone (machine was "destructed" by the wonderful geeksquad therefore was blown out and completely redone) and while reinstalling the machine i replaced their trend micro internet security suite with a combo of microsoft security essentials and comodo firewall (nice firewall by the way, never used any of the other products from em). When i returned this pc of course cleaned out, system was tuned to run lean, and ran perfectly. While showing her the security stuff i configured i showed her security essentials and explained its simplicity versus trend micro and her response to me was. "Well, ive always found that program very confusing, this I see little way to mess up." Mind you, a novice user. Just wants her internet, email, skype, and facebook.

That should factor into the score as well. How well does a typical user understand their antivirus software, can they figure out how to start a scan? Do they know how to toggle it off and on? Finally the configuration part follows one simple philosophy i follow for computer jobs. To the average user, if the computer doesn't do something automatically, it wont ever be done. That seems to hold true 99% of the time. Some users are good and attempt or do things themselves. Most just dont want to or don't care enough to remember to back up or run an antivirus scan. 

When all this is factored in, i think the tables would change significantly.


----------



## CrazyComputerMan (Apr 16, 2007)

Impossible that Norton is on the lead!

Is it non memory hog anymore or improved?


----------



## new tech guy (Mar 27, 2006)

I still think an antivirus should be looked at with more vectors than how well does it protect. How easy is it to understand. If you pull an average user off the street, have them sit down at the program (preferrebly one who never used the program before) and ask them to do specific tasks with the software. ie. run a scan, perform a manual update, make sure its turned on.... how hard is that to do? Also, are defaults how an advanced user would set them up or do they need some modification.


----------



## jbm1991 (Sep 1, 2007)

Sorry but can some one PLEASE tell me why they bash norton? Branding it a virus, bloatware and stating that it uses loads of resources. Which whilst true maybe 3 years ago is utter nonsense now. It is widely regarded as one of the most lightweight AVs around with one of the best, if not the best, detection rates. So please explain to me why you all hate it so much?

EDIT: also, please don't respond any of the following:
a) "EVERYONE knows it sucks" without stating at least one valid reason.
b) "It really slows down computers". If you say that you obviously haven't used it within the last 2 years, if you had then you would know that it infact extremely fast and light weight.
Thankyou.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Good question. NIS 2010 is not the same Symantec product most (including me) have learned to hate.

Peace...


----------



## Blackmirror (Dec 5, 2006)

avg 9 and malwarebytes keeps me safe 
but then i am pretty internet savvy lol


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

I support systems that run either AVG 9 or (now) AntiVir 10. AVG tends to get slammed for its arguably relatively poor detection rate but I think it works well. One of the things I like about the free version is it offers an e-mail scanner and the link scanner. The competition tends to offer these kinds of features in the commercial versions of their products, not the free versions.

AVG 9 could use better rootkit detection/removal but I haven't (yet) had any personal experience with a rootkit that AVG missed that another tool found and removed.

Here's a question for the "[insert product] works for me" crowd: how do you confirm that your anti-virus software is actually protecting you? I can scan a hard drive with AntiVir and it detects something that AVG won't. Does that mean AntiVir is "better"? Maybe, maybe not. If the AntiVir detection was legit, than you could argue AntiVir is "better". If the AntiVir detection was a false positive (something I've personally experienced with AntiVir), then AntiVir might not necessarily be considered "better".

So, what do you do to confirm your anti-virus software is protecting you the way you think it is? 

Peace...


----------



## Blackmirror (Dec 5, 2006)

well you have to try a few to see what works for you and have i tried a few lol

all systems are go


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Granted but if you installed a few anti-virus apps on a system without any or many infections, that's not much of an evaluation. Right?

I tend not to use Avast! because I don't like the registration requirement. AVG does a great job of not nagging you and is pretty configurable in what it will and won't scan. In both cases, they can report not finding any issues on any given system but there might be an issue lurking. That's where Malwarebytes comes in.  LOL

Peace...


----------



## Blackmirror (Dec 5, 2006)

Well its a cat and mouse game 
the only time i had a really bad infection was from clicking a link that an admin put in a forum lol


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Blackmirror said:


> the only time i had a really bad infection was from clicking a link that an admin put in a forum lol


I bet that was a helpful link.  LOL

Peace...


----------



## dotty999 (Feb 3, 2006)

Blackmirror said:


> Well its a cat and mouse game
> the only time i had a really bad infection was from clicking a link that an admin put in a forum lol


she must have had it in for you! naughty Cookie!


----------



## Blackmirror (Dec 5, 2006)

Well he should have known better and so should have i for clicking lol


----------



## new tech guy (Mar 27, 2006)

jbm1991 said:


> Sorry but can some one PLEASE tell me why they bash norton? Branding it a virus, bloatware and stating that it uses loads of resources. Which whilst true maybe 3 years ago is utter nonsense now. It is widely regarded as one of the most lightweight AVs around with one of the best, if not the best, detection rates. So please explain to me why you all hate it so much?
> 
> EDIT: also, please don't respond any of the following:
> a) "EVERYONE knows it sucks" without stating at least one valid reason.
> ...


Hm could not totally answer that for you.

I can however answer the reason why norton is bashed so bad. To look at that, we need to look at how badly Vista was bashed. Although it was quite a different operating system and far technologically superior to xp. All it took was a bad rap from Apple and its reputation went down the toilet. And for the time that vista was the dominant operating system Microsoft could not evade the slander of the OS.

Seems to be a repeat with norton. They could possibly rename the product if they want to get peoples attention that it is a complete horse of a different color. Or begin a new naming convention for the software all together. This way it avoids the trouble that it had with its old counterparts.

Its all marketing


----------



## Blackmirror (Dec 5, 2006)

dotty999 said:


> she must have had it in for you! naughty Cookie!




Dotty you make me smile thanks for that xxxxxxx


----------



## Mumbodog (Oct 3, 2007)

jbm1991 said:


> Sorry but can some one PLEASE tell me why they bash norton? Branding it a virus, bloatware and stating that it uses loads of resources. Which whilst true maybe 3 years ago is utter nonsense now. It is widely regarded as one of the most lightweight AVs around with one of the best, if not the best, detection rates. So please explain to me why you all hate it so much?
> 
> EDIT: also, please don't respond any of the following:
> a) "EVERYONE knows it sucks" without stating at least one valid reason.
> ...


1. Everyone knows it sucks, true if you choose to believe or not

2. It is the most vulnerable Av software on the market, it is the first thing that is targeted to be shut down by most sophisticated malwares. May or may not be their fault, but its just the way it is.

I clean more PCs with Norton than any other brand of AV, I also clean off the Norton while I am at it.

If the new version is so good, they should offer everyone that bought Norton in the past a FREE upgrade for selling them sorry software for Years! 2003 was the first year it went to crap, downhill from there. I continued to use Norton 2002 for a year or so, until Norton cut off 2002 from updates, never been back. And I was a Norton fan at the time, It was the best AV out there, people just get furious when you take something that just works, and ruin it, for Years! I am Glad Ford and Chevrolet don't sell cars with square wheels, I might be forced to buy a Honda.

Kind of reminds me of the Domino's pizza commercials, Our Pizza doesn't suck anymore, c'mon spend some more money and give it a try, no thanks. Give me a free Pizza, if its as good as you say, I will be back for more. It takes guts to admit you have been selling crap for Years, it takes even more guts to expect customers to come back and spend their money on your say so.

They have a huge PR problem on their hands, and well deserved for selling crap for so many years.

Hey Norton, you want me back?, give me a free 1 year subscription, I will give it a go, if it is what you say it is, I will testify to that, no problem. People just don't want to Gamble on your product when there are So many Free Alternatives that are Great.
And no I don't do FAR.

.


----------



## dotty999 (Feb 3, 2006)

Blackmirror said:


> Dotty you make me smile thanks for that xxxxxxx


you're welcome girlie


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

tomdkat said:


> .......................
> 
> So, what do you do to confirm your anti-virus software is protecting you the way you think it is?
> 
> Peace...


Once in a while, like 6 months or so.....I'll run several online scanners to see if my setup is running clean.
So far, so good 

I run several rootkit scanners, also......nothing found yet.

My assortment of security apps seems to work well....( knock on wood  )


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

new tech guy said:


> I can however answer the reason why norton is bashed so bad. To look at that, we need to look at how badly Vista was bashed. Although it was quite a different operating system and far technologically superior to xp. All it took was a bad rap from Apple and its reputation went down the toilet. And for the time that vista was the dominant operating system Microsoft could not evade the slander of the OS.
> 
> Seems to be a repeat with norton. They could possibly rename the product if they want to get peoples attention that it is a complete horse of a different color. Or begin a new naming convention for the software all together. This way it avoids the trouble that it had with its old counterparts.


I don't fully agree with this. Norton had "earned" a bad rep where Vista had not. Vista's basic rejection was rooted more in the vast differences in the UI from XP and the initial driver and compatibility issues Vista had, when it first came out, IMO.

I do agree that renaming the new products might be a good move to distance the new product from the bad rep the old product had. What I never understood is how the old products could be so bad yet most of the security threat alerts we read about came from Symantec, in one way or another.  LOL



Mumbodog said:


> If the new version is so good, they should offer everyone that bought Norton in the past a FREE upgrade for selling them sorry software for Years!


I think this would be a good gesture. I was surprised to learn the annual subscription to NIS 2010 is $60/yr, which I think is a bit much.

I've supported a couple of machines that had NIS 2010 installed and so far they seem to be running fine. I've checked the NIS logs and the logs report threats that were found and removed and subsequent scans using non-Symantec tools (like Malwarebytes, for example) didn't find anything lurking. Also, I've noticed the NIS removal process seems to be more complete, than in the past (which is also a good thing).

I guess my main issue with the bashing (not necessarily of Symantec products specifically) of products is it seems issues in the distant past remain the main points of objection in today's arguments. In this particular case, since we're talking about NIS 2010, the argument that Norton is a "resource hog" is clearly rooted in past product behavior and isn't the case with the current product offering.

I think we all need to give new product versions a fair try before recommending against their use.

Peace...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Stoner said:


> Once in a while, like 6 months or so.....I'll run several online scanners to see if my setup is running clean.


Do you run the Norton online scanners?  LOL

Peace...


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

tomdkat said:


> Do you run the Norton online scanners?  LOL
> 
> Peace...



I started a thread on their new scanner, Power Eraser, but all it found were false positives......I decided not to go back for more....


----------



## jbm1991 (Sep 1, 2007)

tomdkat said:


> I don't fully agree with this. Norton had "earned" a bad rep where Vista had not. Vista's basic rejection was rooted more in the vast differences in the UI from XP and the initial driver and compatibility issues Vista had, when it first came out, IMO.
> 
> I do agree that renaming the new products might be a good move to distance the new product from the bad rep the old product had. What I never understood is how the old products could be so bad yet most of the security threat alerts we read about came from Symantec, in one way or another.  LOL
> 
> ...


I agree whole heartedly.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

jbm1991 said:


> I agree whole heartedly.


I just corrected a typo in my post above. I had written "issues in the distant *future*" when I meant "issues in the distant *past*". 

Peace...


----------



## Wino (Dec 1, 2001)

Norton AV may well be a great product today. I left them due to their yearly subscription cost rising beyond my consideration of their worth or value. With the rise of the free AV programs and the fact that my email providers (RR, Google and Hotmail) does an excellent job of filtering out spam and possibly harmful emails that get to my machines; that I have internet matured to the point I don't have to open any emails that look suspect and seldom visit web sites that are notoriously famous for crapping your machines; nor having had anything get through the free AV's I've used for the past 8 or so years,

Throw in SpyBot S&D, AdAware, HJT, NAT, ZoneAlarm, every one of my machines run fine. Norton would have to make their software and AV subscriptions free for life to get me back. Don't even get me started on McAfee.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Wino said:


> I left them due to their yearly subscription cost rising beyond my consideration of their worth or value.


This would be a deterrent for me as well, especially given the quality of the free products these days.

Peace...


----------



## headshot89 (May 27, 2010)

Wino said:


> Norton AV may well be a great product today. I left them due to their yearly subscription cost rising beyond my consideration of their worth or value. With the rise of the free AV programs and the fact that my email providers (RR, Google and Hotmail) does an excellent job of filtering out spam and possibly harmful emails that get to my machines; that I have internet matured to the point I don't have to open any emails that look suspect and seldom visit web sites that are *notoriously famous for crapping your machines;* nor having had anything get through the free AV's I've used for the past 8 or so years,
> 
> Throw in SpyBot S&D, AdAware, HJT, NAT, ZoneAlarm, every one of my machines run fine. Norton would have to make their software and AV subscriptions free for life to get me back. Don't even get me started on McAfee.


Emphasis on notorious websites...has anybody tried the McAfee SiteAdvisor add-on for Firefox? I've been using it for a couple of years and I find it helpful to avoid phony websites. Anybody else have experience with that who can agree/disagree with its helpfulness? I'd like to say that it's something that helps me prevent getting viruses/malware when searching sites I don't frequent... :up:/:down:?


----------



## jbm1991 (Sep 1, 2007)

headshot89 said:


> Emphasis on notorious websites...has anybody tried the McAfee SiteAdvisor add-on for Firefox? I've been using it for a couple of years and I find it helpful to avoid phony websites. Anybody else have experience with that who can agree/disagree with its helpfulness? I'd like to say that it's something that helps me prevent getting viruses/malware when searching sites I don't frequent... :up:/:down:?


I agree completely with your recommendation of McAfee Site Advisor, it's the only McAfee product i still use. I also thoroughly recommend *WOT* as it does sort of the same thing as site advisor except its ratings are comprised of many user ratings. I have them both on my firefox and if they both aren't green I dont venture onto that site. And if i do, or if the page redirects me to a "dodgy" website then WOT blocks the website and requests me to confirm I definately want to go on it.


----------



## jp1203 (Jul 21, 2005)

Haven't run any AV software in years here. I guess I don't understand how technically-savvy users get malware and viruses...I never do. On occasion I'll run a scan, but it never comes up with anything other than tracking cookies.

...and I don't pay much attention to updates, either. My primary desktop has no updates beyond SP2. I do a decent amount of browsing, but avoid questionable sites, don't open junk e-mails, and don't use torrents (except for occasionally d/ling a Linux distro that won't move quickly off a server)/P2P software...common sense stuff.

I've cleaned up machines for people before, and it's amazing how bad they can get them. 

The only precautions I really take are building images regularly, and having all documents stored on mirrored RAID drives in a file server.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

JStergis said:


> Haven't run any AV software in years here. I guess I don't understand how technically-savvy users get malware and viruses...I never do.


I'm thinking it's the NON-technically savvy people who get hit the hardest with virus infections. I've witnessed a "drive-by" infection attempt but I was there to simply close the window to prevent the infection. This doesn't mean the threat didn't exist but only I prevented it from succeeding.

Peace...


----------



## jp1203 (Jul 21, 2005)

tomdkat said:


> I'm thinking it's the NON-technically savvy people who get hit the hardest with virus infections. I've witnessed a "drive-by" infection attempt but I was there to simply close the window to prevent the infection. This doesn't mean the threat didn't exist but only I prevented it from succeeding.
> 
> Peace...


I agree 100%. I see posts often enough from people I know to be extremely knowledgeable about how they get various malware from time to time...or from this very thread some have mentioned they've seen their internet security software block things.

I just never even get to the point of having anything coming in to block...I suppose that's why I wonder how they do...


----------



## Mumbodog (Oct 3, 2007)

tomdkat said:


> I'm thinking it's the NON-technically savvy people who get hit the hardest with virus infections. I've witnessed a "drive-by" infection attempt but I was there to simply close the window to prevent the infection. This doesn't mean the threat didn't exist but only I prevented it from succeeding.
> 
> Peace...


Tom, this only prevents the drive by if you have the browser set to delete temporary internet files when the browser is closed, this is where most drive by's install themselves. The main reason I set all my IE browsers to do this.  I have never understood why Microsoft has not made this a default setting.

I have not had one in a few years, I guess my surfing habits have improved.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

JStergis said:


> I just never even get to the point of having anything coming in to block...I suppose that's why I wonder how they do...


You've been lucky.  Every now and then, I'll get a bogus popup about some kind of infection on my system which makes me laugh since I'm running Linux. 

Some of these rogue anti-virus or anti-spyware apps literally pop out of NOWHERE, sometimes, so it's really hard to attribute the source of the infection to a "notorious" site or anything. Some people I support wouldn't think of visiting ANY kind of notorious site, yet their system can sometimes encounter unexpected threats. Then, there are sites that get hi-jacked that can spread malware. This thread is the perfect example. In that thread, the OP visited a site they had visited in the past and during that particular visit, the browser was redirected to a malicious site. The site referenced in that thread has been fixed so you won't be able to see any "live" activity but there are screenshots of the malware trying to dupe the user into installing it in that thread.

Personally, I've been trying to get my Windows 2000 system exposed to more threats so I can better test and evaluate the various tools I currently use. I haven't had much luck, even when viewing blatantly notorious and questionable sites! LOL

Peace...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Mumbodog said:


> Tom, this only prevents the drive by if you have the browser set to delete temporary internet files when the browser is closed, this is where most drive by's install themselves. The main reason I set all my IE browsers to do this.  I have never understood why Microsoft has not made this a default setting.
> 
> I have not had one in a few years, I guess my surfing habits have improved.


I agree with you on the deletion of temporary Internet files and on EVERY installation of IE I touch, I make sure that setting is in place. I can see why Microsoft doesn't make this the default since not everyone has broadband Internet connections with enough bandwidth to warrant repeated downloading of content.

I don't agree of the prevention of the "drive-by" being attributed to the deletion of temporary Internet files. Obviously, if an installer was downloaded it will sit there until it's deleted and dumping the browser cache will (or should) get rid of it BUT a scan of the system with a good anti-malware tool should find the installer and deal with it appropriately.

What I have never understood is why people insist on using IE in the first place....  LOL (Just kidding)

Peace...


----------



## Mumbodog (Oct 3, 2007)

> What I have never understood is why people insist on using IE in the first place.... LOL (Just kidding)


I moved to Chrome, never looked back.


----------



## jp1203 (Jul 21, 2005)

Mumbodog said:


> I moved to Chrome, never looked back.


I've stuck with Firefox, despite the slight stability issues it seems to have lately. Tried Chrome...can't get over the whole lack of menus thing that seems to be the trend lately (though I will say it's fast and stable, which is nice). Same with Office 2007 and later-can't seem to get used to the ridiculous interface.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Mumbodog said:


> I moved to Chrome, never looked back.


I hear ya. I'm *this* close to pulling that trigger on Linux. Right now, Firefox is my default browser but given how fast Chrome runs (plus it being 64-bit native) I'm leaning toward making Chrome (or maybe Chromium) my default browser. 

Peace...


----------



## Mumbodog (Oct 3, 2007)

What is the difference between Chrome and Chromium?

.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Google Chrome is based on Chromium:


> The Chromium projects include Chromium and Chromium OS, the open-source projects behind the Google Chrome browser and Google Chrome OS, respectively. This site houses the documentation and code related to the Chromium projects and is intended for developers interested in learning about and contributing to the open-source projects.


Chromium can be run as a standalone browser. I've posted screenshots of Google Chrome 5 (beta) and Chromium 6, both 64-bit native and both running on Linux in one of the Google Chrome threads in the "Tech News" forum.

Peace...


----------



## b_a_s_h_a (May 29, 2010)

*Microsoft Security Essentials* all the way !


----------



## jiml8 (Jul 3, 2005)

Chrome talks a lot with Google. Google is too intensely interested in collecting information; I don't trust 'em.

Also, in Linux, I found Chrome to ignore proxy settings altogether, though that certainly could have been a bug associated with the beta status of the version I was running.

However, Chrome is fast. No doubt about it.


----------



## dotty999 (Feb 3, 2006)

I like MSE, it does a good job and is easy on resources compared to most


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

jiml8 said:


> Also, in Linux, I found Chrome to ignore proxy settings altogether, though that certainly could have been a bug associated with the beta status of the version I was running.


Interesting. I haven't had a need for proxy access in Chrome on Linux but in Chrome 4.x on Windows, proxy access worked perfectly. I never got Safari on Windows to work with the proxy I use.

Peace...


----------



## jillian2 (Sep 11, 2004)

loserOlimbs said:


> Taking the graph at face value:
> Norton is itself a virus, its slows even the most robust machines almost to a point to make it unusable, forces an upgrade when your license runs out by locking everything down (No internet to search for alternatives) and frequently causes issues. And how does McAfee get a negative score, surely it found something, even if they did test against 2009.


Norton no longer slows down one's machine. Doesn't mine . I used it for years and it became so invasive and heavy that I stopped using it. But I started again last year and it is nothing like it once was. I rarely know it is there and it does not slow my computer in the least. It does it's job .


----------



## wtxcowboy (May 25, 2004)

i was a faithful user of mse, no probs til the upgrade to v1963 & now it won't update the definitions except on 2nd try everytime, not even thru windows update! don't have this issue on xp, just w7 64bit. emaled m$ & opened a support ticket & their long-winded advice was to uninstall old, install new lol which i did. worked 1st time but not since. so i'm not convinced it can update properly or protect my computer any more & have dumped it altogether. went with avira as i've used it before, about a yr ago on my xp machine & it was fine. so installed avira 10 & stupid program won't auto update lol. read in their forums, it's a known bug yikes! so added all the .exe files related to avira to my firewall exceptions & created a new updater job in the scheduler & it finally updated. whatever happened to programs working right out of the setup & no worries lmao???


----------



## jp1203 (Jul 21, 2005)

jillian2 said:


> Norton no longer slows down one's machine. Doesn't mine . I used it for years and it became so invasive and heavy that I stopped using it. But I started again last year and it is nothing like it once was. I rarely know it is there and it does not slow my computer in the least. It does it's job .


I concur. I've seen Norton 360 v 3 and 4 on plenty of PCs, and the resources it uses are very minimal. It's definitely a lot lighter than most of the software on the market now.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I've been using MSE on a number of systems here, and I've seen no updating issues on XP, Vista, or Windows 7.


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

New AV Product Testing Methods Stir Debate.

*Antivirus vendor-backed group says its proposed lab testing standards will provide a more fair and accurate representation of AV products, but not everyone agrees*

-- Tom


----------

