# Norton Power Eraser



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Anyone have experience with or knowledge of Norton Power Eraser?

Brief description and download link:
http://security.symantec.com/nbrt/npe.asp?lcid=1033&origin=default



> Eliminates deeply embedded and difficult to remove crimeware that traditional virus scanning doesn't always detect.


It is described as a beta and aggressive so that the user has to be especially aware that false positives are possible and care must be used. It appears to be recommended as a tool of last resort when others come up 'empty' but suspicion still remains.

Review here:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2362915,00.asp

I have run it and it reported no risks under 'Normal' and 6 returns under 'aggressive' that turned out to be benign.
( I wasn't expecting any problems )
The app does not install, but it does require access to the Symantec servers.


----------



## Mumbodog (Oct 3, 2007)

I don't trust any Norton product, but thats me.



> If you have become the victim of crimeware that regular virus scans can't detect, use the Norton Power Eraser to target and eliminate them.


Ignorant statement, so Norton, how does one know they are a victim if AV software does not detect it. 

Another marketing ploy. "Crimeware" give me a break Norton.

Invent a new term, create a market where there was none....genius!

I will give them the benefit of the doubt, I have an infected system coming in tomorrow, I will run it and see what it turns up.

Thanks for sharing Jack.

.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Be interesting to see how your client's system works out.

Would you consider doing a Norton PE scan before and after 'cleaning' just to get a feel for what it's capable of detecting?
The scans on my machine, about a 15 gb XP system, were quick on the order of 3 or 4 minutes.


Yeah.....advertising sells and I suspect 'crimeware' will becoming a buzz word soon.


----------



## Mumbodog (Oct 3, 2007)

> Would you consider doing a Norton PE scan before and after 'cleaning' just to get a feel for what it's capable of detecting?


Will do, I will save the before and after logs.

Yes I tried it on my laptop just to see what it does, it scans very quick, which tells me it cannot be scanning much.

I also noticed if you click the down arrow by the scan button you get a choice, Scan System (default), Directory Scan (allows selection of a folder to scan)

I suppose they offer this scanner because Norton knows that most malware shuts Norton down to prevent its removal.

.


----------



## Snagglegaster (Sep 12, 2006)

Mumbodog said:


> Will do, I will save the before and after logs.
> 
> Yes I tried it on my laptop just to see what it does, it scans very quick, which tells me it cannot be scanning much.
> 
> ...


It might be more informative to look at the Norton Rescue Tools page that includes Power Eraser. I think the tool is described better on this page than on the original link. I'd really like to know what technology is involved in the scan, but I'd never say that the fact that the tool "scans very quick" means that "it cannot be scanning much." Surely you can't be saying that a tool that takes 6 months to scan your computer is inherently better than one that does it in a week?

NAV isn't my choice in AV software anymore than it appears to be yours, but I frankly don't see how you can deny that it holds up very well in most testing.


----------



## Mumbodog (Oct 3, 2007)

Snagglegaster said:


> , but I'd never say that the fact that the tool "scans very quick" means that "it cannot be scanning much." Surely you can't be saying that a tool that takes 6 months to scan your computer is inherently better than one that does it in a week?


I would, I have been scanning systems since 1998, I know how long it takes to be thorough.

6 months, who said that besides you? 

Now you are being ridiculous an an attempt to voice your opinion. :down:

.


----------



## Snagglegaster (Sep 12, 2006)

OK; you know how long it takes to be thorough. How long is that?

I think you miss the point that most signature-based antimalware software isn't adequate to deal with more modern infections because the worst threats mutate so fast that signature-based scans are ineffective.

Are you familiar with rootkit detection programs like GMER? GMER will generally give you a report on any rootkits (legitimate or not) within a few seconds after it launches. How long does ComboFix typically run? You shouldn't dismiss a utility that runs quickly out of hand, or a utility that comes from a publisher you don't like.


----------



## Mumbodog (Oct 3, 2007)

> OK; you know how long it takes to be thorough. How long is that?


Lets not play games, you know how long it takes, if you don't this conversation is meaningless.



> Are you familiar with rootkit detection programs like GMER? GMER will generally give you a report on any rootkits (legitimate or not) within a few seconds after it launches. How long does ComboFix typically run? You shouldn't dismiss a utility that runs quickly out of hand, or a utility that comes from a publisher you don't like.


Yes, I have been using gmer since it came out, and other rootkit detectors before its time.

I don't use combofix, never have, I use different methods to clean systems, have been doing so successfully since 1998.

Considering Nortons track record of horrid AV software, I can dismiss it very quickly, although I did say I would try it.

Now go plant some more roses and leave me alone.

.


----------



## Snagglegaster (Sep 12, 2006)

Mumbodog said:


> Lets not play games, you know how long it takes, if you don't this conversation is meaningless.
> 
> Yes, I have been using gmer since it came out, and other rootkit detectors before its time.
> 
> ...


"I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request." I suggested that "scan time" per se is not a realistic metric of antimalware performance, but you really didn't choose to address the issue in meaningful terms. You don't use ComboFix? Fine by me. Your loss (well, your customers, really), not mine.

Already said it: Norton Antivirus is not my product of choice. Still, if you want to talk about "Nortons (sic) track record of horrid AV software", it might not be a bad idea to substantiate that remark. Let's see now, in Virus Bulletin's testing NAV has gotten 53 VB100 awards out of 60 tests. I don't think that's too bad. I like NOD32. It has gotten 61 VB100 Awards out of 64 tests. How does your favorite stack up in the VB100 Awards, Mdog?

Still, the past performance of AV software isn't necessarily germane to the performance of current products. So, how's that "horrid' Norton doing these days? Well, NAV got AV-Comparative's "Best Product of the Year" Award for 2009, PC World's Second Place Award for 2010. How did your choice fare?

I fully appreciate that there is a wide range of criteria that can be used to evaluate the performance of all anitmalware products, but well-reasoned, rational evaluations are more convincing than rants.


----------



## Mumbodog (Oct 3, 2007)

Snagglegaster said:


> "I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request." I suggested that "scan time" per se is not a realistic metric of antimalware performance, but you really didn't choose to address the issue in meaningful terms. You don't use ComboFix? Fine by me. Your loss (well, your customers, really), not mine.
> 
> Already said it: Norton Antivirus is not my product of choice. Still, if you want to talk about "Nortons (sic) track record of horrid AV software", it might not be a bad idea to substantiate that remark. Let's see now, in Virus Bulletin's testing NAV has gotten 53 VB100 awards out of 60 tests. I don't think that's too bad. I like NOD32. It has gotten 61 VB100 Awards out of 64 tests. How does your favorite stack up in the VB100 Awards, Mdog?
> 
> ...


Blah, blah, blah, all nonsense. Read all the bias reviews you want. I go by my experiences with horrid Norton. Reviews are for uninformed people who wish to stay uninformed. Tests are for those who do not remove malware, but noobs wanting to know who tests the best. Do you remove malware for a Living? I doubt it, you read reviews and look at tests. Unsubscribing from this thread now.

Jack, I will post my results in a private message to you.

.


----------



## Snagglegaster (Sep 12, 2006)

Mumbodog said:


> Blah, blah, blah, all nonsense. Read all the bias reviews you want. I go by my experiences with horrid Norton. Reviews are for uninformed people who wish to stay uninformed. Tests are for those who do not remove malware, but noobs wanting to know who tests the best. Do you remove malware for a Living? I doubt it, you read reviews and look at tests. Unsubscribing from this thread now.
> 
> Jack, I will post my results in a private message to you.
> 
> .


Actually, MDog, I do about 2 to 3 malware removals per day. So, yes, that's unfortunately a lot of my income. Yeah, I feel bad because I look at tests and use them as guides to evaluate different products. What the Hell am I thinking? I also read a lot of those things called "white papers", and even "blogs". So, Mubodog, you're only going to post your evaluation of Norton Power Eraser in a PM and not share it with other forum members? Guess that means you're either too embarrassed or too intimidated to post a public response? You can think of me what you want, but, why withhold your wisdom from other forum members? Bet Stoner will share.


----------



## Snagglegaster (Sep 12, 2006)

Mumbodog, let's heal the breach; this goes out to you buddy.

Peace, bro


----------



## Snagglegaster (Sep 12, 2006)

Dang! Still no response! Would Kumbaya have been a better choice for the kiss and make up video? Well, never mind. So, Stoner, have you ever gotten any useful feedback on Power Eraser?


----------



## Mumbodog (Oct 3, 2007)

Snagglegaster said:


> Dang! Still no response! Would Kumbaya have been a better choice for the kiss and make up video? Well, never mind. So, Stoner, have you ever gotten any useful feedback on Power Eraser?


Roses are Red and Violets are Blue, and there is no feedback for you!

The program sucks, but its beta and Norton on top of that, a double whammy for Power Eraser.

Here is an Idea malware remover expert, try it for your self! This is actually better than reading what others say about it.

Personal experience is always better than someone else's opinion.

now go plant some Roses.

.


----------



## MEDUSA1987 (May 12, 2010)

Arguing between yourselves is a bit schoolboyish and is not helping anybody.


----------



## Mumbodog (Oct 3, 2007)

MEDUSA1987 said:


> Arguing between yourselves is a bit schoolboyish and is not helping anybody.


Thanks forum Mom. I will go to my room now.


----------



## egomoo (Apr 18, 2008)

Snagglegaster said:


> OK; you know how long it takes to be thorough. How long is that?
> 
> I think you miss the point that most signature-based antimalware software isn't adequate to deal with more modern infections because the worst threats mutate so fast that signature-based scans are ineffective.


Yes,I agree with it.

GMER and Autoruns are the best manually removal tools for almost all the malwawre or rootkit.

Norton Power Eraser is a good thought,but now have much false positives.


----------



## Cookiegal (Aug 27, 2003)

Mumbodog and Snagglegaster,

No one will ever agree when it comes to anti-virus program performance and although discussion is good you both need to leave the personal attacks and sarcastic comments at the door. This is disruptive and doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.


----------



## englishtown (Apr 15, 2010)

I prefer software that erases all not only dangerous .exes


----------



## Blackmirror (Dec 5, 2006)

> Because the Norton Power Eraser uses aggressive methods to detect these threats, there is a risk that it can select some legitimate programs for removal. You should use this tool very carefully, and only after you have exhausted other options.


leave the testing to you Jack lol


----------

