Symantec's Norton Suite

[Guest]

I know for some of you, this may be a sore spot, but i felt it had to be
discussed. I'm sure at one time or another many of us will have used Norton
Internet Security, Norton Anti-Virus, or Norton Personal Firewall for our
security. Now, apart from the obvious size of the software in comparison the
system resource usage, i'd like to discuss the effectiveness of this package.

For the record, my previous security setup was using Eset NOD32 Anti-Virus
System with Windows Firewall and Windows XP Professional SP2 with all
available updates along with Microsoft Office 2003 SP2 with all available
updates. I had no back up software (apart from the back up software included
with Windows XP itself which wasn't suited to my needs), i had no recovery
software, i had very little in the way of anti-spyware software and finally
i'm a very centralised user.

Finally, i'm surfing the Internet behind a NETGEAR DG834 Hardware Firewall
Router. My system specifications are as follows:

CPU: AMD Athlon XP 2600+ 2.08GHz
Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-7N400 Pro 2 nForce 2 Ultra 400
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 6600GT AGP 128MB
RAM: 2GB GeIL Dual Channel DDR 400
Storage: 2 160GB Seagate Barracuda (Ultra-ATA) - 1 Used As Back Up

After i formatted my HDD, i proceeded to install Norton GoBack 4.0, Norton
Internet Security 2006, Norton SystemWorks 2006 and Norton Ghost 10.0 to
provide security for my system, a scheduled back up solution, a recovery
point solution and system maintainence utilities - some of which i didn't
have before.
Now, i'm not someone who simply "jumps" at the chance to buy the latest
Norton range of software, and i'm certainly not blind to the fact that
Symantec's software gets flak from users with bad experiences, but for my
personal needs, and for the wider needs as advised in the MS Press book
Microsoft Windows Networking And Security, by installing the above software,
i had followed the precautions ever user should take - and more. The reason i
bought the software was in light of the situation i had before i moved to a
situation where the router was available, in addition i am using an ADSL
Connection and not Cable, as i was previously and in which there would be
full need for this software regardless as i would have been using a Cable
modem with no hardware based protection.

I'm fully hoping to make my security and networking enthusiasm become a full
time job for reputable and trustworthy firm such as Symantec or Eset, but i
would like to see everyone's opinions on Symantec's software, and if, in all
honest, i've done the right thing and made the right choices relating to my
situation regardless of public perception.
After all, the fact is that security companies are vying for your attention
regarding their products, and although some products are obviously incapable
of adequate protection for its users (where "adequate" protection definition
can be applied in security i do not know), Symantec is at the very least a
very reputable and recognisable provider.

I fully believe that security for each individual is a truly unique task, in
that each user has specific needs that need to be addressed and catered for,
and that in all fairness, each and every vendor is aiming to provide
protection from a common threat, regardless of how it is seen by others.

 

[Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User]

Scott

If it works for you, then good.. for many, Norton products do not work so
well, and even removing them to replace with something better can become a
veritable nightmare..

I sit behind a D-Link Di-624, as do two other hardwired and three wireless
machines.. all rely solely on the router, AVG Free, Microsoft Defender, and
SpywareBlaster.. none of the security products are invasive in the way that
Norton and McAfee are, and they are 'free to a good home'.. nobody at this
location surfs where they shouldn't, and there are strict controls over what
gets downloaded and from where.. the system administrator (me) is known to
come down heavy on system abusers.. I control the three wired machines
directly, one being my production machine, a 'loaner' given to people while
theirs is being fixed, and whatever I am building/setting up for a client..
the three loose cannons can be turned off immediately if the need arises..

 

[Guest]

Likewise I find that clients specify Norton on the 'Baked Bean Principle' -
that the brand-leader MUST be the best.

Actual results are very unpredictable. In a rollout of identical W2000 Dell
computers a while back, I found that some worked OK, some had major problems
with Norton causing Word to crash every time a file was saved.. All were OK
until Liveupdate was run, it was after that the problems started. This
debacle lost me the maintenance contract with a major UK shopfitting outfit,
so I was not exactly amused by it.

Basically, most other AV products work well, Norton is THE one I'd avoid.

 

[Ivor Jones]

Likewise I find that clients specify Norton on the 'Baked
Bean Principle' - that the brand-leader MUST be the best.

Actual results are very unpredictable. In a rollout of
identical W2000 Dell computers a while back, I found that
some worked OK, some had major problems with Norton
causing Word to crash every time a file was saved.. All
were OK until Liveupdate was run, it was after that the
problems started. This debacle lost me the maintenance
contract with a major UK shopfitting outfit, so I was not
exactly amused by it.

Basically, most other AV products work well, Norton is
THE one I'd avoid.

Strange. I've been running Norton in various guises since my DOS days, and
I've never had a problem, with one exception, and that was with one of the
early versions of Ghost. I have the latest versions installed on 2 Dell
machines here, both running XP Pro, and no problems whatsoever. In fact
the latest version of Ghost was invaluable last year when I had a HDD
failure.

Oh dear I expect Mr. Murphy will intervene with his Law now..!

Ivor

 

[Guest]

My reply is at the bottom of your message :

I fully believe that security for each individual is a truly unique task, in
that each user has specific needs that need to be addressed and catered for,
and that in all fairness, each and every vendor is aiming to provide
protection from a common threat, regardless of how it is seen by others

Hello Scott . What can I say/comment , from what you write it seems to me
that you like Norton and trust Symantec - you have bought IS pack+SW
pack+Ghost...

I don't like Norton .Norton takes too many resourses and I have seen too
many users having Norton and still being infected too much...

I have been using Panda Software and F-prot for some years , now I don't
like them so much. Panda is a perfect cleaner-I think it is a software that
can heal any infection but since I saw how many problems 2006 products
create to people's everyday usage , I got rid of it and now I use it only to
clean infected machines. McAfee is also good cleaner . F-prot has nothing but
only signature-based technology.

Symantec also has nothing but signature based technology and some kind of
heuristic detection only 25% of the new threats. Norton personal firewall is
really difficult to control and even for me (I have been working with
computers for some years) it is difficult to control it.

But as Mike Hall said , if you like it , good !

Currently I own two computers . They are both protected by NOD32 , Windows
Firewall or ZoneAlarm ,and Ad-Aware SE Personal .Fully updated Operating
systems-Windows XP .


Panda_man

 

[Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User]

Ivor

Norton does work well for some people, but I have yet to come across such a
person during the course of my work.. some of them have claimed that Norton
worked for them even though they have picked up a virus or the computer has
been running slow or behaving strangely..

What I fail to understand is why they seem so reticent to change.. the fact
that they may have just bought Norton, or renewed their subscription does
not seem worth the trouble they get.. I had one client who actually
re-installed Norton after I removed it and replaced it with something
else.. the excuse was that they did not feel safe.. lol.. please somebody
explain to me what is safe when handed a grenade with the pin pulled and the
safety held with one small piece of Scotch tape..

 

[Leythos]

Ivor

Norton does work well for some people, but I have yet to come across such a
person during the course of my work.. some of them have claimed that Norton
worked for them even though they have picked up a virus or the computer has
been running slow or behaving strangely..

What I fail to understand is why they seem so reticent to change.. the fact
that they may have just bought Norton, or renewed their subscription does
not seem worth the trouble they get.. I had one client who actually
re-installed Norton after I removed it and replaced it with something
else.. the excuse was that they did not feel safe.. lol.. please somebody
explain to me what is safe when handed a grenade with the pin pulled and the
safety held with one small piece of Scotch tape..

Your experience is very different that mine. We have more than 1500
system running Norton/Symantec AV products, mostly the Corp edition, but
a couple Sororities running Norton and have no problems with it.

In our testing and work with the Sororities, a properly installed Norton
with current updates was the only systems to have been tested as clean,
three years in a row. The AVG systems had a few trojans, and seem to get
at least one new trojan every 3 months (apx), but they stay clean for
the users that don't do risky things.

I've used Norton products, not the suites, just the AV products, since
they were available on the market and have never found them to be a
problem. While they often suck up resources, more than the free
solutions, they have a much higher detection rate than the free
solutions.

 

[Guest]

--
Microsoft Windows Networking & Security Enthusiast

My reply is at the bottom of your message :


in part :


Hello Scott . What can I say/comment , from what you write it seems to me
that you like Norton and trust Symantec - you have bought IS pack+SW
pack+Ghost...

I don't like Norton .Norton takes too many resourses and I have seen too
many users having Norton and still being infected too much...

I have been using Panda Software and F-prot for some years , now I don't
like them so much. Panda is a perfect cleaner-I think it is a software that
can heal any infection but since I saw how many problems 2006 products
create to people's everyday usage , I got rid of it and now I use it only to
clean infected machines. McAfee is also good cleaner . F-prot has nothing but
only signature-based technology.

Symantec also has nothing but signature based technology and some kind of
heuristic detection only 25% of the new threats. Norton personal firewall is
really difficult to control and even for me (I have been working with
computers for some years) it is difficult to control it.

But as Mike Hall said , if you like it , good !

Currently I own two computers . They are both protected by NOD32 , Windows
Firewall or ZoneAlarm ,and Ad-Aware SE Personal .Fully updated Operating
systems-Windows XP .


Panda_man
--
Bronze level Contributor
Prevention is always better than cure !
http://pandaman.my.contact.bg
Please , rate posts

Thank you everyone for your replies. They're certainly different in every
way i'll give you that. I'm under the impression that there's certainly a few
who trust it and a few who don't but at the end of the day staying protected
is the main factor.

Now, in regards to Panda Man's comments, i actually got Norton GoBack 4.0,
Ghost 10.0 and NIS 2006 in a bundle together for around £60 so i didn't think
it was that bad a choice, and i'm not exactly someone who is terribly fussy
on the speed of my system, as i'm not a gamer, and generally spend a lot of
time looking into security related articles as it is! I also surf safely
which is a major factor regarding system security.

I have experience in the Corporate Editions of Symantec's software and i
have to say that all in all, it's an excellent package for clients and large
corporations but i'm worried now that i've made the wrong decision in
installing the package.

Ok, i will admit that Eset's NOD32 is a superior program in detection in
some cases but without using my packages, which at the end of the day i did
pay for, i wouldn't have any protection against system failure, i wouldn't
have any way of rolling back my system efficiently against any mistakes on my
part and i would certainly feel more at risk and far more cluttered in my
computing experience, in having to use 3-5 different programs to do one job
each, and in the end complying with the common security bubble - and for
myself, it's certainly an issue.

I'd appreciate more comments. =)

 

[Dave]

I'm using the same combination of Symantec products and am very satisfied.
I've used Norton products for years and never been infected.

 

[Guest]

Just a small update for everyone who's taken part in this thread, and i thank
you all. I've now decided to leave Symantec's haven and head forth to Eset
once again. I've formatted my HDD once again and my girlfriend has purchased
a 3 year subscription to NOD32 for myself for £54 which is an excellent price
considering the far superior support and effort given to the program by Eset.

I now have no subscription worries until 2009 and everything to look forward
to with this excellent piece of anti-malware software. I fully look foward to
greeting Eset's Security Suite efforts with open arms later this year.

 

[NoNoBadDog!]

I know for some of you, this may be a sore spot, but i felt it had to be
discussed. I'm sure at one time or another many of us will have used
Norton
Internet Security, Norton Anti-Virus, or Norton Personal Firewall for our
security. Now, apart from the obvious size of the software in comparison
the
system resource usage, i'd like to discuss the effectiveness of this
package.

For the record, my previous security setup was using Eset NOD32 Anti-Virus
System with Windows Firewall and Windows XP Professional SP2 with all
available updates along with Microsoft Office 2003 SP2 with all available
updates. I had no back up software (apart from the back up software
included
with Windows XP itself which wasn't suited to my needs), i had no recovery
software, i had very little in the way of anti-spyware software and
finally
i'm a very centralised user.

Finally, i'm surfing the Internet behind a NETGEAR DG834 Hardware Firewall
Router. My system specifications are as follows:

CPU: AMD Athlon XP 2600+ 2.08GHz
Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-7N400 Pro 2 nForce 2 Ultra 400
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 6600GT AGP 128MB
RAM: 2GB GeIL Dual Channel DDR 400
Storage: 2 160GB Seagate Barracuda (Ultra-ATA) - 1 Used As Back Up

After i formatted my HDD, i proceeded to install Norton GoBack 4.0, Norton
Internet Security 2006, Norton SystemWorks 2006 and Norton Ghost 10.0 to
provide security for my system, a scheduled back up solution, a recovery
point solution and system maintainence utilities - some of which i didn't
have before.
Now, i'm not someone who simply "jumps" at the chance to buy the latest
Norton range of software, and i'm certainly not blind to the fact that
Symantec's software gets flak from users with bad experiences, but for my
personal needs, and for the wider needs as advised in the MS Press book
Microsoft Windows Networking And Security, by installing the above
software,
i had followed the precautions ever user should take - and more. The
reason i
bought the software was in light of the situation i had before i moved to
a
situation where the router was available, in addition i am using an ADSL
Connection and not Cable, as i was previously and in which there would be
full need for this software regardless as i would have been using a Cable
modem with no hardware based protection.

I'm fully hoping to make my security and networking enthusiasm become a
full
time job for reputable and trustworthy firm such as Symantec or Eset, but
i
would like to see everyone's opinions on Symantec's software, and if, in
all
honest, i've done the right thing and made the right choices relating to
my
situation regardless of public perception.
After all, the fact is that security companies are vying for your
attention
regarding their products, and although some products are obviously
incapable
of adequate protection for its users (where "adequate" protection
definition
can be applied in security i do not know), Symantec is at the very least a
very reputable and recognisable provider.

I fully believe that security for each individual is a truly unique task,
in
that each user has specific needs that need to be addressed and catered
for,
and that in all fairness, each and every vendor is aiming to provide
protection from a common threat, regardless of how it is seen by others.

I have been involved with computer for more than 20 years. I can remember
when Norton was still in the hands of Peter Norton.

Despite the nay-sayers, there is no other product on the shelf that can
begin to compare with Norton Internet Security. It is rock solid
protection. When installed on a healthy system, it has only a very slight
impact on system performance. It does not consume large amounts of system
resources, although many will claim it does.

Symantec products are used by the U. S. Government to protect it most
sensitive data (I spent more than twenty years in the military, working with
classified information, and Symantec is all that is used). Banks in the U.
S. use it. Most major Universities use it. Most businesses use it. Why?
Because it works.

Bobby