Norton Antivirus 2009 and Norton Internet Securithy 2009 final versons released

Off to the side of the image you see 2 letters and the same 2 letters multiple times.. my funny thing is LOOK AT THIS

 

I thought this was a norton thread.....

 

My current security suite runs out in November and by then I will have to decide what to use. Right now I would go with NIS 2009 b/c it has good protection and is light on resources. A security software simply having the best detection is not necessarily the one I would choose unless it runs very light too. By November when I need to decide I should have a better grasp on how all the suites perform and can make a decision then.

 

@emperordarius

Most of these trojans are older than five years!!!

I don't belive a single word of your story.

 

I never bad mouthed norton but had good reason to do so from past experiences.I would not have believed how light Norton 2009 unless experienced my self as I am doing now.Truly remarkebale compared to past version and its about time.

 

I'm sorry I confused logs the log that I posted after is the right one

 

Yes, and that is the one I checked!

 

Just looked up,Backdoor.Win32.Delf.bf and my recollection was right. Its a old trojan backdoor ....
see: http://www.viruslist.com/en/viruses/encyclopedia?virusid=43368

But if you look at Symantec site for the same:
http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2001-072718-4049-99

It appears Symantec signatures are less generic. So maybe thats why they were missed But since Symantec has a common naming branch, I could be wrong. Still update were given on 6th and still scan fails on 10/11 th ??
Also in beta, I found that System Protection of Norton was not very good. Maybe some malware compromised it, allowing such ancient infections to still propagate. I can't see any such powerful spyware/malware which is intelligent enough to do that from that list given.

EDIT:
It seems there is a Vundo infection here. So maybe theory 2 is correct.

 

Forget it. They were not. This guy is simply full of of sh**...

 

Ok dude enough is enough.



EDIT.

Also just a FYI if any of those files were EXECUTED.. They would of been stopped by Norton.. I'm sorry dude you lost all creditably with me ;(

 

I'm serious. I don't wanna lie anyone. As I said he downloads all kind of dangeorus stuff. He's a script kiddie, and often deals with infected files. But that doesn't change the fact that Norton didn't detect the file (if it did it would have automatically deleted it. Don't believe me if you don't want to.

 

he didn't say that the list were FP's

 

OK then show me the FULL Image including the DETECTED DATES by kaspersky and the Files. im sorry dude but the evidence you have provided shows nothing accept gaps in what you are telling us.

The first image you showed us was July 2nd Thur the 29th then the 2nd one you show us has everything in folder USER and all by the name of the Trojans and for a fact I know 3 of those ARE DETECTED by Norton. as I just passed them Thur my test computer. your friend aint the only one that has a source for samples.

 

Wow, the story gets even better.

So your friend is a "script-kid", collecting malware dating back to 2002 on his desktop. And wait, yeah, he is running no security software at all. So wait a minute, and you installed NIS 2009 and it didn't find a single one of these legendary threads. WOW!
And now the best part begins. You plug the harddisk at your PC and Kaspersky seems to have disinfected these files already two month ago!!! MAN, this I call proactive protection...

 

Ok, just looked it up.
It seems there is a Vundo infection here
Win32.Mondera.gen = Vundo
see: http://www.threatexpert.com/report.aspx?uid=37c55c32-7be6-4a38-84ad-5fd402646ab7
http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/virusenc/virusencinfo.htm?VirusName=Trojan:Win32/Vundo.gen!O

So I think, it may be true. Vundo based malware use exploits/vulnerability for propagation and some are able to disable services.

Hence Norton was blindsighted/disabled mostly. If you had run a scan via Norton Recovery Tool , probably same would have been caught. And since your friend had Windows Update disabled since a long time, I think it becomes even more simple.

 

Avira, Kaspersky, and Norton are all good. I like Kaspersky because of its long record of excellence, and for me, it HAS found stuff that Norton didn't. That doesn't mean that Kaspersky is perfect and Norton has bad detection.. the gap is closing in fact, but I still give Kaspersky the edge.

Also, on my computer, NIS 2009 didn't slow me down less than others.

 

Here:
You know what, let's close this discussion. It's my fault that I bothered making this test.

 

This is now A vs. B bigtime - lol.

Let's not take security personally. It's not just with Norton, but with all security products - people don't want to believe one bad thing about their security product.

 

Man I'm not saying anything, I'm not trying to compare anything. I just wanted to test the new norton on my friend's pc. I'm not saying that norton is not good and kaspersky is or something like that. But let's close this discussion now. I won't bother making anymore tests.

 

Agreed bro.

Guess it could be consider that.. but for someone to have to believe it about there security product is they would have to use it.. My self I currently use whats in my sig on my main system.. tho Norton is on the test computer and running good there.

as for now back on topic which is how norton is running and its release.

 

I'm sorry but your a Fanboy so all I can say is baloney, your history will prove me correct. According to you everybodies AV "other' than the big K is garbage, you should at least level there & I'm sorry I still have strong doubts what your claiming is 'totally' true...also FWIW ALL av's miss something but if a AV was poor as you claim Norton is it wouldn't miss ALL those...

 

I'm not saying the test isn't legit. Norton could have missed those - it happens. But yes, this is now A vs. B.

 

I have simply chosen Kaspersky because for me it is the best overall, at least from the ones I tried. The same reason why almost everyone uses a particular antivirus, not just a random one. And I never said that all avs are garbage while K is the best. I'm sorry if I'm not one of those that says "all antiviruses are good" or "all antiviruses are pretty much the same" because in my opinion it's not true. But please let's stop now. game over.

 

54 of 54 Come on... As said before, some of these date back to 2002 and even ClamWin will find them!

Somebody should get some samples and try to reproduce these results. I'm too lazy to do so...