Norton Internet Security install ish re:SP2

[Guest]

I have NSW 2004 & NIS 2004. A couple of days ago, they freaked out and
basically took themselves out of the running. After much work and beating of
my head on the wall, I have NSW (w/NAV) reinstalled. NIS, however, will NOT
go. It gets to the point of saying "Norton Internet Security Feature
complete" then the installation fails, and it undoes all its progress.
Nothing helps. I have a query in to Symantec, and they've been no help so
far. So...
A) Does anybody have any ideas?
B) What is the likelihood that SP2 might be impeding me?
C) Honest opinions: should I keep SP2 or not ?? Is it worth the grief?

Thanks,
Chuck

 

[Guest]

:

[Latest Symantec NIS horror story snipped for brevity]

A) Does anybody have any ideas?
B) What is the likelihood that SP2 might be impeding me?
C) Honest opinions: should I keep SP2 or not ?? Is it worth the grief?

Keep SP2. SP2 is definitely not your problem. Symantec is your problem.
Ditch NIS and SW immediately. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Also
stay away from other so-called "security suites" and "utility suites." They
don't help your computer's performance or stability, and ultimately they lead
lead to problems that never existed prior to their installation. For proof,
keep reading these newsgroups. You will get it in spades.

Use a good standalone antivirus program (Norton is okay, but you have better
standalone options such as CA and Trend Micro) and otherwise stick with the
built-in XP tools (including the firewall as well as the performance and
maintenance tools), IE with the default settings for SP2, an antispyware
program, (I would personally recommend the Microsoft beta program), and Ad
Aware SE. If you just can't resist the temptation to buy a third party
utility, get Diskeeper or PerfectDisk and use it rather than the built-in
defragger, but even here the built-in defragger is more than adequate for
most people.

Ken

 

[Guest]

Thanks for the input, Ken. I've actually seen it both ways in here. Some
people think all Norton products suck eggs, some think they're then greatest
thing since sliced bread. I personally have been using them for about 8
years, and this is my first major issue. I have seen a LOT of "SP2 stinks"
posts. And some the other way. In regards to NIS, I have seen a few stating
that it is superior to Windows Firewall for the simple reason that it does
not monitor outgoing traffic, as does NIS. Have changes been made that I'm
unaware of to change this?
Thanks again.

:

[Latest Symantec NIS horror story snipped for brevity]

A) Does anybody have any ideas?
B) What is the likelihood that SP2 might be impeding me?
C) Honest opinions: should I keep SP2 or not ?? Is it worth the grief?

Keep SP2. SP2 is definitely not your problem. Symantec is your problem.
Ditch NIS and SW immediately. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Also
stay away from other so-called "security suites" and "utility suites." They
don't help your computer's performance or stability, and ultimately they lead
lead to problems that never existed prior to their installation. For proof,
keep reading these newsgroups. You will get it in spades.

Use a good standalone antivirus program (Norton is okay, but you have better
standalone options such as CA and Trend Micro) and otherwise stick with the
built-in XP tools (including the firewall as well as the performance and
maintenance tools), IE with the default settings for SP2, an antispyware
program, (I would personally recommend the Microsoft beta program), and Ad
Aware SE. If you just can't resist the temptation to buy a third party
utility, get Diskeeper or PerfectDisk and use it rather than the built-in
defragger, but even here the built-in defragger is more than adequate for
most people.

Ken

 

[Guest]

Thanks for the input, Ken. I've actually seen it both ways in here. Some
people think all Norton products suck eggs, some think they're then greatest
thing since sliced bread.

I was a much bigger supporter of Norton in the Windows 9x days than I am
today. They have changed over the years from a lean and mean maker of system
utilities to a not so lean and mean maker of security software.

I personally have been using them for about 8
years, and this is my first major issue. I have seen a LOT of "SP2 stinks"
posts. And some the other way. In regards to NIS, I have seen a few stating
that it is superior to Windows Firewall for the simple reason that it does
not monitor outgoing traffic, as does NIS. Have changes been made that I'm
unaware of to change this?
Thanks again.

Opinions vary on whether third party firewalls that block certain outgoing
communications are superior to the SP2 Windows firewall. Do you really need
this added capability, or are you doing the equivalent of wearing a condom
even when you know that you are not going to have sex? Moreover, anytime you
add new system or security software to Windows XP, you are asking for
potential problems -- problems in installation, problems in configuration,
problems in performance and stability. Most of the firewall posts in these
newsgroups concern third party firewalls and "security suites" like Norton,
not the Windows XP. This isn't an accident.

Windows is designed to run just fine with the built-in firewall, as long as
the user uses good antivirus and antispyware software, along with prudence
and plain common sense, to keep the crudware off his system in the first
place. That's how I run my machine. It is as fast as a gazell, I never have
firewall-related problems, and my machine is as secure as Fort Knox. I have
never -- not once -- ever downloaded any adware, or spyware on my machine.
No virus has ever gotten past my antivirus program (which, incidentally, was
Norton for years until about two years ago when I switched to meaner and
leaner antivirus softwrae).

Ken

 

[David R.]

I was a much bigger supporter of Norton in the Windows 9x days than I am
today. They have changed over the years from a lean and mean maker of
system
utilities to a not so lean and mean maker of security software.


Opinions vary on whether third party firewalls that block certain outgoing
communications are superior to the SP2 Windows firewall. Do you really
need
this added capability, or are you doing the equivalent of wearing a condom
even when you know that you are not going to have sex? Moreover, anytime
you
add new system or security software to Windows XP, you are asking for
potential problems -- problems in installation, problems in configuration,
problems in performance and stability. Most of the firewall posts in
these
newsgroups concern third party firewalls and "security suites" like
Norton,
not the Windows XP. This isn't an accident.

Windows is designed to run just fine with the built-in firewall, as long
as
the user uses good antivirus and antispyware software, along with prudence
and plain common sense, to keep the crudware off his system in the first
place. That's how I run my machine. It is as fast as a gazell, I never
have
firewall-related problems, and my machine is as secure as Fort Knox. I
have
never -- not once -- ever downloaded any adware, or spyware on my machine.
No virus has ever gotten past my antivirus program (which, incidentally,
was
Norton for years until about two years ago when I switched to meaner and
leaner antivirus softwrae).

Ken

Additionally there is something called IP-security which can filter outgoing
traffic too. And a combination of Windows Firewall plus IP-Sec rules is
enough for any home user and even for small to medium buissneses. If you
really need more Security, get an ISA server.
Norton itself was good a long time ago, but since Symantec bought them they
got worse and worse. Sure there are still some that don't want that to be
true and as such still try to defend and use norton software, but in the end
the ones running without Norton and learning what Windows can do by itself
have the cleaner and more stable system.
Besides, the NIS had some security flaws in the past which let's viruses and
not wanted traffic through (one example is a simple string-search in files
to find a virus. A virus or trojan altered with a hex-editor is enough to
trick NAV. NPF has similiar problems in other areas). What good is a
Security Software which you can't trust? If you trust it you are more at
risk than before, and if you don't trust is then why do you use it in the
first place?

 

[Guest]

Additionally there is something called IP-security which can filter outgoing
traffic too. And a combination of Windows Firewall plus IP-Sec rules is
enough for any home user and even for small to medium buissneses. If you
really need more Security, get an ISA server.

Is IP-Sec a native XP program (e.g. comes with XP Pro even though it may
not be installed by default) or is it a separate Microsoft program?

Norton itself was good a long time ago, but since Symantec bought them they
got worse and worse. Sure there are still some that don't want that to be
true and as such still try to defend and use norton software, but in the end
the ones running without Norton and learning what Windows can do by itself
have the cleaner and more stable system.

Exactly. I would add only that old habits are hard to break. Back in the
Windows 9x days, when the OS was much less robust and much less stable,
Norton software seemed to be much more important, although even then, with
the benefit of hindsight, I would stop slightly short of saying essential.
It is both perfectly natural, and totally wrong, to assume that because XP is
a later generation of Windows, you need a later generation of Norton software
to go with it.

Besides, the NIS had some security flaws in the past which let's viruses and
not wanted traffic through (one example is a simple string-search in files
to find a virus. A virus or trojan altered with a hex-editor is enough to
trick NAV. NPF has similiar problems in other areas). What good is a
Security Software which you can't trust? If you trust it you are more at
risk than before, and if you don't trust is then why do you use it in the
first place?

In my experience, I have never had a problem with Norton's ability to keep
my system secure. The problem has been that such security comes at a
substantial price in other areas, such as overall performance and stability.
And even though NIS does come with extra bells and whistles, the plain truth
is that my machine would not in the end be any more secure with NIS than
without it because I use other methods besides my firewall to keep crudware
off my machine and to warn me if something slips through my three or four
already existing lines of defenses (which has NEVER happened).

Ken