Should I believe Consumer Reports when............

[Mystic]

There are the same old stories about Norton again and again on the internet and elsewhere. Anybody who claims that Norton is bloated software either has not tried Norton 2010 or else just has a bias against Norton. As far as I am concerned there is no comparison between the Norton antivirus of a few years ago and the present day Norton antivirus. It is almost like two different programs and two different companies. Somebody somewhere at Symantec and Norton has made a difference. In fact Norton 2009 even does not compare to the Norton 2010 and you should see the beta version of Norton 2011.

Norton could still be improved in various ways but in all fairness it has to be considered a pretty good antivirus today.

I personally feel that both NOD32 and Kaspersky are slipping badly. I have used both quite a bit in the past few years and I had developed a dislike for Norton. Well, Norton is a different critter today. It is much lighter on system resources, scans faster, and seems to do a good job.

I feel today that Norton can be compared to Kaspersky. I did not think a few years ago that I would ever say something like that. Judging from what I know about the 2011 beta version of Norton the Kaspersky people better start improving their product.

Anybody who feels that Norton is hard to remove needs to find out that you can get a removal tool from Norton.

As far as Consumer Reports is concerned I still like to read Consumer Reports but I no longer consider CR to be the final word on anything. I think CR has developed a kind of bias and once something like that develops you can no longer trust any organization that develops such a bias.

 

[sprintman]

Disbelievers get NIS 2011 beta for a play, it's free. Nothing to lose and that's a fact!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: sprintman
ESET is a good point product. Malware is to sophisticated for that approach these days and has been for a while.


NOD32 detects malware and a host of other things. It simply lacks a firewall and other "suite" features, which in my experience, do not add to its effectiveness anyways.

 

[OVERKILL]

I've had to clean malware off of TWO systems with NIS 2010 on them in the last month. Does that mean NIS 2010 is simply an "ineffective point product"?

No.

NIS, Kaspersky, ESET, Panda....etc. They all have one thing in common: They are SOFTWARE that runs ON the computer you intend on protecting.

In that sense, they are ALL "point" products, and all are limited in the amount of protection they can provide.

Software firewalls are a joke. Slapping a cheap 40 dollar router between the cable modem and their computer provides more REAL protection.

Anti-viral/Anti-Spyware/Anti-Malware "protection" is a fallacy. If these systems can get infected and THEN the software picks it up? Well the software has already failed. System integrity has already been compromised.

Sandbox software shows a lot of hope in preventing these types of infections.

Something like an SA that actually scans the traffic coming in and out of the LAN is another solid step in providing a safe environment. But the real key is user education.

"Security Suite" software is like slapping your 4 year old in a bullet proof vest, putting an M16 in his hands and then sending him out in the streets of Iraq. Yup, he's safer than if he went out without the vest on.... But he'd be a [censored] of a lot safer if he knew not to go out there in the first place.

I find a decent piece of A/V software that isn't intrusive (which ALL security suites are, compared to their A/V counterparts), some solid user education and a decent router/SA solution does wonders as a "safety package". Throw in a periodic scan with MWB/A-Squared/SAS and you have a solid setup.

I have never liked the "Security Suite" approach; no matter who the manufacturer is. Like excessive safety features on a car breed stupid drivers, "Security Suites" on a computer breed stupid users. Those that think they can go anywhere and click on anything and be safe.

And then you get the phone call.

 

[javacontour]

Eggsactly (sic, I know)

There is a reason I'm the one with admin rights an no one else on the Windows boxes in my home. It cuts down on the infection rate and problem frequency.

If folks would do their day to day work without admin rights, a lot of issues would magically disappear.

 

[Mystic]

Everybody who uses a modern day operating system like Windows 7 or Mac OS X should use a standard account for day to day operation and use the administrator account only when necessary. If a standard account does get infected with a virus you can always delete that account and setup a new standard account.

I saw that Consumer Reports testing. Now I have a few issues with CR but I think we can probably rely on a lot of their testing.

The NOD32 A/V that a lot of people like to brag about was the WORST of any paid A/V tested against web threats! For the average computer user today probably most threats come from the web. So if NOD32 tested the worst against web threats it is not very useful-is it?

In comparison the Norton A/V that a lot of people like to put down as trash tested very good against web threats. CR ranked it number one in their testing (for paid programs).It also had very good scan speed.

The Kaspersky ranked only good in defending against web threats.

I am not surprised how the free programs tested. AVG in my opinion has declined and I have mixed feelings about Avast! Avira is okay but I would use Microsoft Security Essentials if I was using a free A/V.

And there are other free programs like Malwarebytes Anti-Malware and A-Squared that can make a difference. You can get Threatfire from PC Tools for free. And at the Norton website you can get a free site advisor and a free program called ThreatExpert that tests stuff in memory.

And of course a person needs a good hardware firewall.

It will be a very cold day in you know where before I trust online applications and online 'cloud' security. Apple can keep their iPad.

 

[sprintman]

Anti-viral/Anti-Spyware/Anti-Malware "protection" is a fallacy. If these systems can get infected and THEN the software picks it up? Well the software has already failed. System integrity has already been compromised.

That's where NIS differentiates with Insight protection etc, not waiting to get infected, then trying to remove it with an out of date definition database. At every mornings meeting our engineers talk about how the point products are beyond useless. We inherited Trend Micro Officscan, it is being replaced. I illegally run MBAM on my work desktop and it finds the occasional malwarem so much for corporate security behind the best hw firewaals etc money can buy.

 

[Mystic]

I am VERY impressed with the 2010 Norton! There are a lot of good security concepts included in the 2010 Norton. And the 2011 will improve on these.

Kaspersky has a 2011 beta also and it looks like they are following Norton with what they call 'Wisdom of the Crowd' technology. And they have an interesting sandbox concept.

For paid A/V programs today the only 2 I will even consider are Norton and Kaspersky. For a free program I will take Microsoft Security Essentials.

Other stuff worth considering are the free Norton site advisor software, ThreatExpert, Threatfire, MBAM and A-Squared and SAS.

I do believe that CR is correct in rating Norton number 1. But they put BitDefender number 2 just because it costs less than Kaspersky probably. I would have put Kaspersky number 2.

No matter how good the firewall/server security is, malware can get through because of silly things computer users do. Even a legit website can be infected with malware. A good software A/V is a must.

 

[sprintman]

For 2010 suites I would have NIS 2010 and KIS 2010 fairly equal w/NIS a lot nicer I/F. Kaspersky have a lot to do to match NIS 2011 IMO, but competition from the two heavyweights helps us all. And still not a sigle infection since NIS 2009 installed. I have a paid suscription to Spyware Doctor but it didn't 'play nice' with 2010 even though PC Tools is owened by Symantec so currently deleted. Just MBAM now but I'm getting sick of updating/scanning with it.

 

[Mystic]

Norton is good enough now so I feel a person does not need to have a lot of other security programs on their computer. But MBAM, A-Squared and SAS could come in very handy if a computer did get infected. The free versions do not run in real time and do not interfere with Norton. Norton does include a rescue CD (what they call the Norton Recovery Tool).

I think Norton and Kaspersky are pretty much in a class by themselves. A lot of these other programs are a long, long distance behind. In fact, Microsoft Security Essentials is probably superior to some of these paid A/V programs.

Really the only problem with Windows computers is computer security and once a person has a good security program like Norton Windows becomes the best desktop computer operating system that there is.

 

[sprintman]

Have you trialled NIS 2011 beta yet? I read a few days ago, and I'll try to find it, where a tester didn't think it had actually loaded as the CPU load was so low. Now that can't be bad.

 

[Mystic]

I have not tried it. I figure I will wait for the 2011 version to come out. But I have read about all the new features and improved technology.

What is really funny (and I do mean REALLY FUNNY!) are all of these people, including so-called security experts, who continue to carry on about how bloated Norton software is. It was bloated in the past but it can't be called that today. It scans fast and even the 2010 version has low resource useage on a computer. The 2011 version is supposed to be better!

Somewhere in Symantec/Norton there is some top quality talent.

 

[sprintman]

I can't think of any sw less bloated and in my job I cover most of 'em.. It proves what I've always thought, most 'testers' never actually load the sw. I'd also like to know what happened at Symantec to turn all this around, new boss maybe?

 

[Mystic]

My guess is that it is not a new boss. There is just some inspired talent somewhere. People who actually want to do a good job. If there were such people at McAfee the McAfee A/V could be worthwhile.

How much can you trust any so-called security expert on the internet if they continue to say that the Norton A/V is bloated software when we know that it is not? Such 'security' experts are either uninformed (and therefore useless) or not telling the truth (and even more useless).

I am not a big fan of Consumer Reports anymore but they do have extensive testing facilities and access to other groups and organizations capable of doing real testing. Before I believe what some unknown Joe Blow says on the internet I will believe real testing first. The fact is that Norton tested the best of the paid programs. In fact, there was only one other program (TrendMicro) that tested better against web threats. And I do not consider TrendMicro much of a program overall.

Heck, they rated Eset (NOD32) number 5 and it tested 'poor' against web threats. Since web threats for most computer users are probably the biggest threat how can Eset be the number 5 program? It should be last!

A few years ago I had developed a great dislike for Norton. But Norton has changed and I will not continue to dislike Norton because of what Norton was like in the past. That would be like these people who continue to dislike Microsoft and Windows and keep saying that Windows is a very insecure operating system when WE KNOW that Windows 7 is a huge improvement!

I have changed my opinion of Norton 100%.

 

[dkryan]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Everybody who uses a modern day operating system like Windows 7 or Mac OS X should use a standard account for day to day operation and use the administrator account only when necessary. If a standard account does get infected with a virus you can always delete that account and setup a new standard account.


So, I should have three accounts set up for two users, i.e., my "administrator account," plus one for my wife and one for me? And log into my "non-admn" account for day-to-day business?

Originally Posted By: Mystic
I saw that Consumer Reports testing. Now I have a few issues with CR but I think we can probably rely on a lot of their testing.

The NOD32 A/V that a lot of people like to brag about was the WORST of any paid A/V tested against web threats! For the average computer user today probably most threats come from the web. So if NOD32 tested the worst against web threats it is not very useful-is it?


That's why I asked; not so much about CR themselves, but more about the malware "score" for ESET and whether that truly is my biggest threat.

Thanks, guys, for the spirited debate and the info. It's nice to know we have "experts" on BITOG that can talk more than filters, fluids, and UOAs.

Admittedly, some of you have forgotten more about IT/PCs than I will ever know, so it's always nice to have a "sounding board."

 

[Mystic]

For day to day operation it is better to use a standard account. This is true even with Mac OS X but probably most Apple users just use the admin acount anyway. If malware gets into your standard account it cannot necessarily infect the entire computer.

I am no computer expert on software or hardware. But I can see with my own eyes that Norton 2010 does not slow down a computer as much as the older versions of Norton. I don't have to be some sort of security expert to see that. And I am extremely happy with the Norton scan speed. And the 2011 Norton will probably put even less drag on an operating system.

Is CR accurate in their testing? I don't know. How can any of us know? But I will believe their testing and other reputable testing by good organizations before I will believe what some Joe Blow on the internet says.

I no longer even pay any attention whatsoever to some of these so-called 'security experts' on the internet. I can see with my own eyes that some of these people either are lying or else are uninformed. Where I work a person can be terminated for lying.

Let us say for a moment that CR was accurate in their testing of these A/V programs. If the biggest threats to most computer users are threats from the internet and if NOD32 is poor when handling such threats, where would you rank such a program? I personally lost confidence in NOD32 when Spyware Doctor caught Trojan Horse programs that NOD32 had not detected.

NOD32 has won a lot of awards. And back in the days when computer viruses were what people had to worry about, NOD32 was probably sensational. But today, although there are still viruses, the biggest threats are Trojan Horse programs, internet worms (a kind of virus), Botnets, Spyware of various kinds, backdoors, etc. My personal opinion is that the times have caught up to NOD32. Or else there is some problem with the company that developed NOD32. I have pretty much lost all interest in NOD32 and Eset although the Eset online scan can be very useful.

 

[sprintman]

No expert here, just need a new security program and my engineers and myself I might add arrived at the same conclusion. I didn't purchase for weeks as the old wives tale (Norton is bloatware la de dah) said look elsewhere. Now i just don't worry anymore. If MBAM or one of the others does find something this will be the first place I'll post it. I even ran Sophos ant-rootkit and GMER anti-rootki yesterday for something to do, nothing as usual.

 

[Mystic]

I like the Sophos anti-rootkit. It shows all hidden files on your computer. I figure it is safe to delete any temporary files and temporary internet files. I have not used GMER anti-rootkit.

Microsoft actually developed technology that makes it possible to locate every hidden file on a computer. The mere fact that a program hides itself is used as a weakness and the program is revealed regardless. I think this technology is called Strider Gatekeeper, if I remember correctly. Why Microsoft does not make wide use of this technology is beyond me. It potentially defeats every rootkit.

I think that ultimately technology like this and technology like sandboxing will disable most of the junk malware we have to face. But there will still be no solution for computer users who do foolish things and download useless stuff and go places they should not go on the internet.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
For day to day operation it is better to use a standard account. This is true even with Mac OS X but probably most Apple users just use the admin acount anyway. If malware gets into your standard account it cannot necessarily infect the entire computer.


Yes it can.

Quote:
I am no computer expert on software or hardware.


But you are giving out advice like one.

Quote:
But I can see with my own eyes that Norton 2010 does not slow down a computer as much as the older versions of Norton.


No, they have greatly improved that aspect of it.

Quote:

Is CR accurate in their testing? I don't know.


Yet this is the crux of your entire argument; you are basing your opinion on NOD32's abilities on this very test.

Quote:
How can any of us know?


Well, using them them all in the real world is a real nice start. But hey, that's just a small part of my job description. I'm sure you are much more knowledgeable on this topic than I am. I only get paid to do it.

Quote:
But I will believe their testing and other reputable testing by good organizations before I will believe what some Joe Blow on the internet says.


And repeat it like it is pure fact too!

Quote:
I no longer even pay any attention whatsoever to some of these so-called 'security experts' on the internet. I can see with my own eyes that some of these people either are lying or else are uninformed. Where I work a person can be terminated for lying.


Well, that's the thing about the Internet. People with ALL KINDS of credentials can voice their opinion on something with little to no recourse for what they've stated. That includes you, who, in this very thread, are being looked up at for advice on a subject that you are not an expert on, and base your own opinions on information gleaned from a publication who likely has about as many Computer Security experts on staff as my local Seven-Eleven.

Quote:
Let us say for a moment that CR was accurate in their testing of these A/V programs.


Oh, I believe you've alluded to that pretty regularly in this thread....

Quote:
If the biggest threats to most computer users are threats from the internet and if NOD32 is poor when handling such threats, where would you rank such a program? I personally lost confidence in NOD32 when Spyware Doctor caught Trojan Horse programs that NOD32 had not detected.


So, based on THIS logic, I should condemn Norton 2010, because it didn't find 15 pieces of Malware that A-Squared found then? This is a slippery slope, especially given the incredibly vague categorization of Malware.

Quote:
NOD32 has won a lot of awards. And back in the days when computer viruses were what people had to worry about, NOD32 was probably sensational. But today, although there are still viruses, the biggest threats are Trojan Horse programs, internet worms (a kind of virus), Botnets, Spyware of various kinds, backdoors, etc. My personal opinion is that the times have caught up to NOD32. Or else there is some problem with the company that developed NOD32. I have pretty much lost all interest in NOD32 and Eset although the Eset online scan can be very useful.


See, you went from doing a "Consumers Reports" what-if comparison to drawing a very solid "conclusion" that is being spun as educated and experienced.... But really isn't.

And that's what I hate about the Internet. That some keyboard jockey can voice his opinion on a forum and in many cases, that advice goes against what is given by people who DO know.

And the people who DO know get the pleasure of cleaning up after what happens when somebody listens to the keyboard jockey, and installs something like NIS 2010 and then decides to go download crazy on Pirate Bay because they have SUPER PROTECTION that makes them COMPLETELY IMMUNE to ANY sort of infection, because some guy who sounded like he knew what he was talking about on the Internet said so....

Quote:
Really the only problem with Windows computers is computer security and once a person has a good security program like Norton Windows becomes the best desktop computer operating system that there is.


Because THAT statement is [censored].

The biggest problem with Windows is the person staring at the monitor. And no amount of security software is going to be able to keep that computer clean. I know. I get to deal with it FIRST hand.

As I touched upon earlier (and I know you don't care, but I'm going to state it again)

Anti-viral/Anti-Malware/Anti-Spyware SOFTWARE is just a single LAYER of protection. User EDUCATION along with a good HARDWARE firewall and/or an SA are NECESSARY steps that need to be taken to protect an environment.

Software protection against software CANNOT, with the current crop of programs that are available, provide ABSOLUTE protection against infection.

PERIOD.

NOD32 detects EVERY SINGLE ONE of of the items on your "biggest threats" list. Any decent AV program worth its salt does.

It doesn't come with a firewall. If you have a router, you don't need one. It doesn't come with a "snazzy" browser toolbar. I consider that a benefit.

But I'm not here to sell this guy NOD32. He can use McAfee if that's what he likes. It is the IDEA that "Security Suite" software is necessary, when it IS NOT.

He is not going to be any SAFER on the Internet with NIS, Kaspersky, ESET or any of those programs over one another. They all have different detection databases and they are ALL going to miss something. A big issue I've noticed with Avira lately is false positives. Like identifying some Cisco software as Malware.

Making him feel paranoid about his current choice and then turning this into a 4-page thread about how NIS 2010 can cure cancer and how only Kaspersky is the 2nd closest contender; everything else is akin to bathing in raw sewage is simply ridiculous. His current choice is fine as long as it is a recognized piece of software that is current.

Sprintman sounds like he is having excellent results with NIS 2010. I can say it is a massive improvement over previous versions in my own experience. I can say good things about a number of mainstream products.

He asked if his current product is fine. It is.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: sprintman
No expert here, just need a new security program and my engineers and myself I might add arrived at the same conclusion. I didn't purchase for weeks as the old wives tale (Norton is bloatware la de dah) said look elsewhere. Now i just don't worry anymore. If MBAM or one of the others does find something this will be the first place I'll post it. I even ran Sophos ant-rootkit and GMER anti-rootki yesterday for something to do, nothing as usual.


If you have good browsing habits, I wouldn't expect it to find anything.

Are the systems being protected behind an SA or? I'm just curious as to the use of a Security Suite, when in Enterprise, it is VERY rare for anything other than straight AV software to be chosen, because the "Suite" components like software firewall, are essentially useless.