Symantec Says Free AV Software Can’t “Keep Up”

[arXiv76]

Been using NOD32 for 6 years and not a single infection or internet based infection.
Love IT!

 

[DragonMaster]

av-comparatives does have a point about downgrading Avira for the false positives.

The false positives in Avira are cracks, keygens, etc. I suppose they simply try to reduce the amount of pirated software for some reason.

 

[DragonMaster]

Been using NOD32 for 6 years and not a single infection or internet based infection.

If you haven't downloaded any viruses, that would have been the same with any anti-virus, or even no anti-virus at all.

 

[niconx]

Been using NOD32 for 6 years and not a single infection or internet based infection.
Love IT!

Been using no antivirus at all for 3 years and I have never had an infection either! No antivirus at all is the best antivirus on the market, and its free, it uses zero mb of ram and has zero cpu usage. Those are numbers you wont find anywhere else in the buisness. So call now for your copy of no antivirus at all, only $00.00!!! All this can be yours call now!!! 1-800-no-virus!!!

 

[swatbat]

Hahaha

Why aren't more companies/corporations using business/enterprise editions of Kaspersky or ESET?

See below

I've actually been wanting to look for other solutions. I looked at a few last year or the year before (can't rember which now), but their management program were not very good. I'll need to look at those two. Another problem I have is that we pay for 3 years at a time since that is the cheapest. So I only have a small windows of time that I can switch without management getting mad that we are wasting money by paying for two different AV programs.

This goes into one of the big reasons. Companies don't like change. To the non it/is people symantec is the standard that has been around forever. Getting them to switch and putting your head on the line takes work. Same with companies going with cisco. A common saying in the past was that no one ever got fired for recommending cisco. The idea was that since they are considered the major player they are the way to go. You go with another player even if they can match or beat the cisco option and it fucks up it is on you.

In our case most we have moved most of our clients away from symantec av. The non-profits we work with are another story. Symantec pretty much gives them the software. Last time we tried eset was twice as much for the non-profit software. We have one of the non-profits on them, all of the rest we support are sticking with symantec for the cost.

Cost is also an issue for profit business. Renewing av software is cheaper then buying another brand. You have to justify playing more to switch from the current product.

The false positives in Avira are cracks, keygens, etc. I suppose they simply try to reduce the amount of pirated software for some reason.

Symantec goes after key gens as well. I've seen it to that a few times where I will then uninstall the pirate software and give a quote for a licensed version.

 

[TechieSooner]

The false positives in Avira are cracks, keygens, etc. I suppose they simply try to reduce the amount of pirated software for some reason.

No big surprise getting false-positives on that stuff anyway.

 

[Vorazan]

What about the fact that you can NOT uninstall NORTON Scanner? It keeps coming back after reboot and there's a special tool that removes the damn ROOTKIT they call NORTON from your system.

 

[DragonMaster]

What about the fact that you can NOT uninstall NORTON Scanner? It keeps coming back after reboot and there's a special tool that removes the damn ROOTKIT they call NORTON from your system.

Even that tool doesn't work well IIRC.

Avast is a PITA to uninstall as well, I just found lots of remaining files and still-active services on a computer that I tried it on a year ago. (And it sucked)

 

[TechieSooner]

What about the fact that you can NOT uninstall NORTON Scanner? It keeps coming back after reboot and there's a special tool that removes the damn ROOTKIT they call NORTON from your system.

That's why one could classify Norton as malware itself.
Causes unwanted symptoms? Check.
Comes back after you try to remove it? Check.
Bogs system performance down to complete crap? Check.
Attacks legitimate programs? Check.

 

[Ryan711]

I still don't understand the love of AVG...
It's a bloated hog whose detection rates are very poor.

Avira is simply the best free AV. Avast is a close second. Other than that- nothing else out there (at least until Microsoft's new product comes out final- we'll see how it does).


Again, it's not the 2009 version as much as their track record. It'd be like taking an older car to a mechanic, getting it repaired time and time again, just to have it keep failing. He then gets a new facility, state of the art equipment, and actually knows how to fix it...

But you, knowing his shitty track record, aren't going to go back. He's going to have to show some strong and continued improvements to ever consider again.

Same it is with Norton.

So by your logic, if Nod32 turned into the worst av ever produced you would stay with it because it had a previously good track record? Yea makes a lot of sense

 

[swatbat]

So by your logic, if Nod32 turned into the worst av ever produced you would stay with it because it had a previously good track record? Yea makes a lot of sense

Respect has to be earned after it is lost. If Eset really tanked version 5 I would switch people away from it(have clients on both kaspersky and eset and plan to keep it that way for now). In symantec's case they have a history of making crappy software. They have a lot to prove before I'd recommend them again.

 

[TechieSooner]

So by your logic, if Nod32 turned into the worst av ever produced you would stay with it because it had a previously good track record? Yea makes a lot of sense

How the hell do you deduce that? I'm saying the complete opposite.

 

[Dan_D]

man so much norton bashing.


Norton has always been well ranked in finding Viruses, the problem with Norton was it was bloated in it's resource usage, but was good at what it did, and the new version finally god rid of the bloat.

It also sometimes trashes your registry to the point where you system won't start.

 

[InorganicMatter]

I should say something about AVG antivirus here. I used it on a daily basis to fix countless hundreds borked computers. It works very well because it goes after viruses that are actually in the wild. Avira was just as good though. AVG Antivirus doesn't do a thing about spyware though and the AVG antispyware utility doesn't work so well. Spybot+Superantispyware+smitfraudfix was my combo for spyware.

Ah AVG...how you have betrayed me.

AVG used to be really cool, one of the best! Then they added a spyware scanner. Then a rootkit scanner, and a URL helper, and a firewall. Now it's a full-blown internet security suite that bogs down your system. I remember when it used to be something like 15MB. The last time I downloaded it, they were at version 8, and it was a 48MB download.

Oh well, now I run a Linux firewall with dansguardian-av. All the virus scanning is done by a dedicated computer, as the traffic flows into my network. Total protection, zero overhead.

 

[THRESHIN]

yay for FUD! its norton that can't keep up

 

[LGabrielPhoto]

Where do you research?

The Symantec Brochure....


Seriously, I love Norton. If it wasn't for them, do you know how much money I would lose cleaning up computers on weekends using REAL software like NOD32? I am glad every has Norton so I get more computers to clean up.

 

[nilepez]

heh, i'll stick with avg free, malwarebytes, and ccleaner

I found that AVG Free had far too many false positives, if heuristics was turned on.

As for Norton's detection rate, is lower, but with very few false positives. IMO, that's important, because if I get false positives all the time, the user might be inclined to remove the software or at least turn of heuristic scans. If they do neither, that false positive might lead the user to delete a file that's not infected, but is required.

From what I've read, it looks like MS's upcoming solution may turn out to be among the best and probably the best free AV software available....but that assumes that the free offering is as good (or better) than One Care was 3 months back.

 

[nilepez]

Yeah, well, you're probably a weeaboo.

Why would you buy something when you can get something that is just as effective for free?

AVG Free + Spybot S&D + Malwarebytes + Hijack This + Trend Micro Java Based Scan = yeah, Norton is pretty much screwed.

Norton saying cheaper/free stuff can't keep up is like a drug pusher telling you he has the best dope in town. Is he telling the truth? Of course not. He is desperate for that sale.

Are you suggesting that the dealer with the best dope in town doesn't claim that he has the best dope in town?

 

[Riddlinkidstoner]

Norton has stepped up the game quite a bit over the past two revisions.

One thing about Norton is the user friendly interface and ease of use and the stupid fast install time of the latest Norton 360 3.0.

Its not the best protection imo but its definitely the easiest to use for people who don't know anything in my experience. It still could use some more improvements though.

 

[nilepez]

Norton Anti-Virus has sucked for longer than that. It has been a bloated piece of shit that often wrecks the machines its installed on. I've seen Norton Anti-Virus actually kill OS installs on several machines just from installation alone. Don't get me started on their useless Norton Utilities/Security software.

Norton Anything=Garbage

So you've used the latest version of Norton?

 

[BigBeef]

Well I would rather have nothing than norton...

Ditto. I can create a better 'anti-virus' with Ad-Block, Script-Block, and Peer Guardian.

This guy is full of dog shit. Even if what he says is true, what's his excuse for Norton being so shitty? Plus people paying for it? I find AVG and Nod32 landslides better. I was using AVG when it was free also.

 

[BigBeef]

+1 Symantec lost the clue about three or four years ago.

I've used both Symantech Endpoint Protection at work and I have to tell you it's the biggest drag on the system I've had in a long time. Loading up malware signatures from the past ten years has a big ass foot print.

The companies that have free anti-virus/anti-malware products also have better paid solutions. That doesn't mean every paid solution those companies offer are all worth the price, but you can tell that they are at least trying to show that there's value in the paid solution.

Norton Anti-Virus has sucked for longer than that. It has been a bloated piece of shit that often wrecks the machines its installed on. I've seen Norton Anti-Virus actually kill OS installs on several machines just from installation alone. Don't get me started on their useless Norton Utilities/Security software.

Norton Anything=Garbage

I had issues in the pass on a slower machine. It tore up system usage and continued to slow the machine down by blocking things that were trying to run

So you've used the latest version of Norton?

I have on all my dad's computers.....equally bad on each.

 

[Valset]

The Symantec Brochure....


Seriously, I love Norton. If it wasn't for them, do you know how much money I would lose cleaning up computers on weekends using REAL software like NOD32? I am glad every has Norton so I get more computers to clean up.

I laughed but there is quite a bit of truth here, I do get some work thanks to them

 

[Dan_D]

So you've used the latest version of Norton?

No I haven't. I won't touch anything with the name "Norton" attached to it aside from Norton Ghost. I'm using a very old version of that BTW.

 

[Yossarian22]

Are you suggesting that the dealer with the best dope in town doesn't claim that he has the best dope in town?

It is a very low possibility that he is telling the truth.

Which is why it makes sense to use more than one of the free anti-malware tools out there. Sometimes Spybot S&D doesn't catch what Malwarebytes catches and vice versa. Sample all their dope and use it all in a free dope sampling orgy.

To the guy who responded that he'd rather use one $30 top notch piece of software (Norton was it?) rather than all the alternatives that are free that I suggested, there is a difference. All the alternatives, you only run them when you need to. They don't hog system resources as most anti-spyware\malware is known to do. If you suspect you have an infection or you're about to make a major credit card purchase online, run your tools and make sure you come up clean.

Beats having something that uses too much RAM and CPU cycles on 24/7 and doesn't have that great of success rate. That's the difference.

 

[nilepez]

No I haven't. I won't touch anything with the name "Norton" attached to it aside from Norton Ghost. I'm using a very old version of that BTW.

That's certainly your prerogative, but to claim that Norton sucks because of some old version is analogous to saying people should avoid Windows because Windows ME was buggy.

It is a very low possibility that he is telling the truth.

Which is why it makes sense to use more than one of the free anti-malware tools out there. Sometimes Spybot S&D doesn't catch what Malwarebytes catches and vice versa. Sample all their dope and use it all in a free dope sampling orgy.

To the guy who responded that he'd rather use one $30 top notch piece of software (Norton was it?) rather than all the alternatives that are free that I suggested, there is a difference. All the alternatives, you only run them when you need to. They don't hog system resources as most anti-spyware\malware is known to do. If you suspect you have an infection or you're about to make a major credit card purchase online, run your tools and make sure you come up clean.

Beats having something that uses too much RAM and CPU cycles on 24/7 and doesn't have that great of success rate. That's the difference.

If it isn't running, you have exactly a 0% chance of catching a virus when it hits your machine. What's more, every review of the latest version notes the low use of resources, the fact that it does it's scanning while the system is otherwise idle and that it no longer slows down the machine.

So while I don't disagree about using the free alternatives, there's also no reason to avoid Norton 2009 and I strongly suspect every person claiming it's bad have either not used it or have some sort of bias against Symantec, which is understandable, since they've destroyed so many great products, but it's not warranted in this case....and this is from someone who hadn't used a Norton product for 4 or 5 years, because of there performance issues.

 

[firas]

anyway, good to hear the word “Norton” again, I thought they switched their HQ to a car show room or something.

 

[firas]

I think it was in 2005, when I visited one of my friends at his work place when he used to work in technical support with an ISP company, he told me the first question we ask the costumer: do you have Norton system work 2005? (not really sure about the version), if he says yes, they tell him uninstall it first then call us back.

 

[Yossarian22]

That's certainly your prerogative, but to claim that Norton sucks because of some old version is analogous to saying people should avoid Windows because Windows ME was buggy.

No, just that style of 'active scan' virus scanner should be avoided. It takes up resources at all times, every single time a file is read or a page is loaded through your browser.

If it isn't running, you have exactly a 0% chance of catching a virus when it hits your machine.

Yeah, if it were 1999 again. Viruses are "non-issue" problems and don't behave like they do in the olden days. If there was a virus that decided to corrupt all my files and format my drives on next reboot I'd be worried. But most modern day things are merely rootkits for botnets or spyware. Which may I remind you, you get these things primarily from being a naughty boy or girl (torrenting illegal content); considering most software updates itself, which means buffer overflow exploits to install such software is pretty uncommon.

So while I don't disagree about using the free alternatives, there's also no reason to avoid Norton 2009 and I strongly suspect every person claiming it's bad have either not used it or have some sort of bias against Symantec, which is understandable, since they've destroyed so many great products, but it's not warranted in this case....and this is from someone who hadn't used a Norton product for 4 or 5 years, because of there performance issues.

Maybe. I'm not just opposed to Norton. I'm opposed to every 'anti-virus' suite that hogs up system resources like the friend who comes over your house without notice, going into the refrigerator, eating all the food, and sleeping on the couch. This includes AVG and the rest. Like many people here have stated, these programs act themselves as spyware or malware, being nearly impossible to remove from your system and give users who have to deploy the software over many systems a migraine.

Even if you said the performance issues nowadays were nil, I'd still be wary. I have a battery of many different free anti-malware applications and I seem to be doing just fine. For free. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. That's my philosophy.

 

[Valset]

So while I don't disagree about using the free alternatives, there's also no reason to avoid Norton 2009 and I strongly suspect every person claiming it's bad have either not used it or have some sort of bias against Symantec, which is understandable, since they've destroyed so many great products, but it's not warranted in this case....and this is from someone who hadn't used a Norton product for 4 or 5 years, because of there performance issues.

this is a good summation here but I would have to add this, given there track record you could never be sure that the current "good product" would not be upgraded to a bad one at some point down the line. I wonder what their development tools are like now (its been years sense I have looked at them)

 

[nilepez]

No, just that style of 'active scan' virus scanner should be avoided. It takes up resources at all times, every single time a file is read or a page is loaded through your browser.

Aside from gaming, I fail to see how this matters. And if there's some drive by attack via the browser, it has a shot of stopping it (and that is how many bot nets get installed, and said infections have been known to happen on sites that are mainstream/not associated with porn or warez).

Yeah, if it were 1999 again. Viruses are "non-issue" problems and don't behave like they do in the olden days. If there was a virus that decided to corrupt all my files and format my drives on next reboot I'd be worried. But most modern day things are merely rootkits for botnets or spyware. Which may I remind you, you get these things primarily from being a naughty boy or girl (torrenting illegal content); considering most software updates itself, which means buffer overflow exploits to install such software is pretty uncommon.

And when a trojan or worm is introduced via some mainstream site, like CNN, one's favorite band's web site or certain sourceforge locations, then what? With that said, if you don't want the RT protection, then just use a free web based service.

FYI, the only time, that I can think of, where scanning might affect me is when gaming, and it's pretty simple to disable Norton if that becomes necessary.

Even if you said the performance issues nowadays were nil, I'd still be wary. I have a battery of many different free anti-malware applications and I seem to be doing just fine. For free. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. That's my philosophy.

Did I say you have to buy it? I get Norton for free AR every year.

this is a good summation here but I would have to add this, given there track record you could never be sure that the current "good product" would not be upgraded to a bad one at some point down the line. I wonder what their development tools are like now (its been years sense I have looked at them)

You'd only get upgraded to a new version if you opted to do so. For example, people who had Norton 2008 could upgrade their software to 2009, so long as their current license was valid. It was optional (though I can't imagine why anyone would have stuck with 2008 over 2009.

AFAIK, Syamtec doesn't sell any dev tools. They had Symantec Cafe many years ago, but they sold the IP off to BEA (now Oracle, I think), a long time ago. Haven't used BEA's product, but Symantec's RAD tools weren't great. I mean you could do a quick UI, but if you dared to edit the code manually (which was almost always necessary), the visual editing almost always quit working. With that said, when they came out they were better than pretty much anything else in the java world.

 

[Wolfie]

the last twenty computers I have worked on have had some antivirus that was up to date,

Norton, Kerensky, Mcafee or AVG
they all had driveby download malware on them, most were pretty messed up.
the big name virus companies were blocked by a proxy which kept them from updating.

 

[TechieSooner]

the last twenty computers I have worked on have had some antivirus that was up to date,

Norton, Kerensky, Mcafee or AVG
they all had driveby download malware on them, most were pretty messed up.
the big name virus companies were blocked by a proxy which kept them from updating.

Most be some serious virus, enough worth bringing up a 43 day old thread for???

 

[gwarren007]

^^^ Yep. Must have been a good one.

 

[auspexd]

Why have you forsaken me endpoint? For an application designed for network admins and the technically savvy why must you treat me like an idiot with your flashy gui and system hogging ways? Corporate edition was great if not a little lacking in the detection dept but at least it was unobtrusive. Dead thread resurrection commence...

 

[Terry Olaes]

Most be some serious virus, enough worth bringing up a 43 day old thread for???

I linked it in my 100 dirtiest sites post today so I can be indirectly blamed for thread rezz.

 

[Joe Average]

Just gives me one last chance to point out something ironic:

Symantec's shitty software can typically be found at Fry's and other major retailers with rebates on them that almost always refund the cost of the entire product - which would then make it free, putting it smack dab in the category that they're saying is useless to begin with.

STICK THAT IN YOUR BLOATWARE AND SMOKE IT...