Norton Internet Security, Antivirus and 360 Being Retired?

McAfee has a very effective gateway solution (hardware) as Yuki pointed out. You will find it one of the better ones in raw detection and network security. I do prefer the URL scanning capabilities of Fortigate, but I like the McAfee Gateway for raw detection of new threats.

I ran into a problem with Norton 2015. On two (of 12) machines here it actually 'disappeared', the ICON disappeared. When I ran a check to see if it was working I could download malware test files without them being validated with Download Insight.. This was corrected on restart of the machine, but alarming to me when an AV suddenly 'disappears' from operating.. Anyone have any suggestions? For now I moved back to Trend 2015 until I can get a ticket into Norton, or find what is causing this. Also I want to test a newer version of Trend under a heavy workload environment. Not to derail, but as expected, Trend is as light as a feather if you follow my procedure of doing a full-scan, waiting 30 minutes, rebooting, then using the machine. I need to figure out why Norton was 'killed' on two machines.. I've verified these machines are malware free, and one of them is a fresh-install.. Strange.

Frank has a point - I think all of us used Norton has a punching bag.. But it seems to be rapidly changing.

 

They made a dramatic turnaround with regard to the Norton product line in 2009. You don't often see companies move that quickly to improve their product.

 

Never had this issue ever on the 4 machines I'm using. The only issue I once had in the past that is now fixed as you know is the double taskbar icon of the Norton icon, just a cosmetic glitch but what you mentioned is pretty serious.

I know your machines are clean so a virus or any spyware can't be it. Were they clean installed on those machines or did those machines have any other AV before? If they did have another AV before, did you ensure to use the proper uninstaller of those AVs to get rid of any registry remnants?

a few more questions to ask:

1) Is UAC on or off? (mine is ON)
2) What OS?
3) All Windows updates are installed right?
4) what are the other running apps in the background/taskbar

 

Yes 2009 was the big game changer when they turned from the heaviest AV to the lightest with their Gamer's Ediiton Norton 2009

 

UAC off. Win 8.1.1. Updates/Patches/Firmware all current. Kerish Doctor and Office are the only things running in Taskbar. Could be a Kerish conflict, but I have them mutually excluded. In fact, my first guess was some system level conflict, so I need to determine if that could be related to a background service. Symantec is very picky about 'stuff' touching it.

 

Another word about McAfee--

Here I am talking about McAfee in 2009. Yep, I've been around Wilders that long.. and Firecat has too.
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/mcafee-virusscan-13-3.236518/

And I'm surprised.... NOTHING has changed with McAfee since then.

It's still a mediocre product.

It's sad that such a large well-resourced company cannot produce a winner.

Hope springs eternal. I do think eventually Intel will do what they need to do to produce a top-tier product in McAfee.

Symantec was able to turn around a hugely bloated product with mediocre test results..

 

I would enable UAC (Windows 8 doesn't play nice when you disable UAC I noticed), and uninstall Kersih and monitor for 2 days.

~Additionally, please check the event log viewer for any fishy errors

 

What makes you think I have never given those products a try? I have written something good about Trend before, just like I would have 12 years ago. Unlike Norton, Trend is stable in its management structure and outlook, as well as continued development and a vision for its products.

Norton, however, is a different beast. It comes from a company that openly admits antivirus is dead and is not a moneymaker in any way for them (link) and then continues to try and monetize it in any way possible. Previously, I have also noted that Symantec's shift to a cloud-based infrastructure was intended as a means of cutting costs and not necessarily to improve protection (I wonder if Symantec has statistics of how many dedicated analysts it employs in European and US nations as compared to six years ago?). All of this in the middle of a restructuring that led to several unwarranted and haphazard divisions (U-turn from PC Tools' "two-brand strategy" to "one Norton, one Symantec" in just 2-3 years, then another sudden decision to "one product" --> This should have been the goal from the start!) that took 3-4 years (can you imagine?).

Each of these factors, taken on their own, is fine. But together, it is enough to put a dark cloud over the company and any of their products. Now that they finally went through with the restructuring, I expect things to improve, but only after a year or two. That is why I do not recommend anyone using Symantec products. In a historical sense they have been inconsistent, as they are inconsistent now - unless this changes, I wouldn't see why anyone would like to use Symantec products. Most users (home or corporate) do not really wish to keep changing products in the long run - and consistency of both the company and the product thus becomes a very important factor. Symantec loses this (for now).

P.S. McAfee is not a bad product either today compared to 10-12 years ago. It's not that heavy these days (but again, there are better products). You should give it a try too.

In the meantime that the product has become "better", Symantec has moved its heavy database to the cloud, redesigned the UI and disabled by default the boot protection which was once enabled. It has also fired a lot of employees, killed off a division (PC Tools) and moved the large majority of its malware analysis "team" to machine learning/cloud algorithms. Not sure if the tradeoff was really worth it. Its a better product, but it's not a better company.

 

McAfee was, and is, consistently average in its performance across a wide range of tests. That means basically any and all types of users can call it as mediocre or average, and it will serve the purpose of providing adequate protection. Over the years, I have to accept AV-comparatives' view that even the products that get so much as a "Standard" rating on AV-C are already very good and will serve most users well, especially ones like us who also use extra precautions, layered security and common sense while on the Internet.

Intel's goal with acquiring this company was to explore OS and hardware level security and it is making good strides on that front. Their focus is not on the software, where the message given was to basically "hold the line". That being said, one can expect some improvements at a later time. I expect the McAfee name to stick around a bit more because outright rebranding it "Intel Security" may cause worries for people with non-Intel CPUs

 

Intel purchased PasswordBox, then immediately killed the lifetime keys for everyone that bought it.

I wouldn't trust them with software.

 

It had been my understanding that as of a a few months ago, Norton announced that it's Web Protection was no longer dependent upon any type of browser plug-in ?

Maybe I was mistaken but I always (with the exception of Facebook Protection), under the (mis)understanding the the the tool bar was an information rather than a protection tool.

Specs from a late beta release:

"
Smarter plugin-less browser protection
Web browsers allow for new functions, or extensions, to be added. This allowed us to create security extensions for common web browsers. Unfortunately, this same extensibility also allows attackers easier access to deliver unwanted toolbars and redirect web traffic. To make them less prone to this, browsers increasingly restrict plug-ins and extensions. So we totally rebuilt several Norton security features in this Beta release to work outside of the traditional browser plug-in architecture. This increases the scalability of browser protection, enabling our customers to continue to use features like Norton Safe Web and Norton Web Protection without having to worry about browser plug-ins."

http://us.norton.com/ns-beta

 

Rinse and repeat for Symantec (Sygate, PC Tools, and many others in the past). You could even say the same about AVG....but at least they did give a 3 year license to those poor Ewido lifetime license holders.

 

What about this d00d's comment:

"Disabling Norton Toolbar does indeed have impact on the security.Without the toolbar some malicious sites aren't blocked.I tested this by visiting an actual bad site that was hosting a trojan.The site was not blocked but the download was blocked by the local scanning engine.With Toolbar enabled I received a warning instead of the site but the malicious file was still downloaded so the site itself isn't completely blocked.If the toolbar was more customizable I would love to keep it.It doesn't really make sense to put a Norton logo next to every single search result.Wouldn't it make sense to put a red warning sign only if the link was malicious ?"

https://community.norton.com/en/comment/6070701#comment-6070701

 

I enabled the toolbar, and found it snagging sites before downloads were made to insight/sonar/reputation. So I think having the toolbar is valuable, and you can simply hit the X and move it to the background and not notice it anymore.

 

My problem with toolbars in general is that they make browsing experience a little sluggish, in Chrome I dont feel much impact but with Firefox it is noticeable.

 

@Mortal Raptor
Re: "this d00d's comment." The d00d says that without the toolbar a trojan "download was blocked by the local scanning engine." Then proceeds to claim that with the toolbar enabled "the malicious file was still downloaded..." I'm assuming the "malicious file" is the aforementioned trojan. In which case, enabling the toolbar cans the scanning engine from blocking trojans? All seems a bit FUDdy at best.

 

Then try NOD32, it has no toolbar, but makes browsing the slowest I've ever experienced across any AV due to its crappy HTTP scanner that not only makes browsing slow and sluggish with a high lag before connecting to sites, but also breaks streaming videos at times

 

Kaspersky Pluginless Technology is the way to go IMO.

Norton toolbar isnt that bad, but I would like to see full protection without it (right now we "only" get IPS without plugins)

 

Do you have anything positive to say? Besides the programs that you use? I've never had any problems with Eset.

 

I say my experience. Your experience may vary. If you didn't have issues with it doesn't mean I and many members on this forum such as zfactor and Mayhana also reported the same issue so it's not just me.

Secondly, what I perceive as slow may not seem slow to you. My performance standards are very high. Even on my Alienware 18 laptop with all SSDs in it / 32GB RAM, it causes a major drag on my system and it doesn't need it a benchmark to feel it, I feel the hit the moment it's installed.

 

The problem is that he doesn't seem that willing to work this out together with ESET, instead he moves on to another product but once in a while keep complaining on the old product, go figure.

Yeah very Many, you forgot Krond though.

All I know is that Krond and zfactor have been in contact with Marcos....then what? Complete silence, no one is talking about it anymore, so don't ask me for an update on this, if Mortal want an update and/or help out then contact Marcos.

Personally, I stay away from all AVs that use browser toolbars, add-ons, extensions or whatever for any of their product features, it doesn't matter if they are connected to detection, protection or something else. That the whole product is browser independent is important to me.

But this thread is about Norton so keep the discussion about Norton/Symantec.

 

I discovered this issue myself before I even joined this forum - several months ago. (11 months?) Where there was always a 'slight' pause streaming some HD content, and a few other issues. That's when I was forced to abandon Eset, and then I started to see AV testing firms rating Eset as having a fairly significant system impact. I won't run it on regularly used desktops/laptops anymore, and my license is relegated to a couple of servers, and a few 'little used' laptops that are really more backups than anything.

 

Pluginless, addonless? Sounds good, I guess they have ditched all the browser dependent crap since this post was made then:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/firefox-30-kaspersky-add-ons.364970/

Yes I know that they may not be vital for the protection to work, but that is not the point here.

 

They are trying to be addonless as much as possible:

"In the beta version of the product KIS2015MR2, starting with build 15.0.2.274, conducted testing functionality "Secure Payment" and "Safe input" without using plug-in for your browser.
This development of technology, first presented in KIS2015MR1, for work "UrlAdviser" and "AntiBanner"


http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?s=ea7eb22dab4aa146b297bc728eb73de3&showtopic=310586