Printable View
http://www.informationweek.com/windo...tion=Securityc
It seems like now whatever M$ wants to do independantly, somebody's yelling at them for creating even more security risks... now M$ wants to completely lock out the 64-bit Vista kernel, a move that would prevent Norton from securing its' defenses... Pretty stupid move, as Norton's already proven to be pretty darned effective.
MS. A company full of Alzheimers patients. Forget everything the previously learned
*cough*Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
I'd say freak problems. Norton's done nothing but good for me... stopped a few intrusion attempts, kept big files clean of viruses and the like... and maybe it is slowing my computer down a bit at startup... it's a good computer. It's not a big deal.
Well I know a hellofalotta people that would disagree with you there, but it's your opinion...
Just be careful where you say that stuff ;) :D :p
Who 'stupider' says, 'stupider' is...:)
OMG NoteMe catches a English error..:)
...an English error.
I use Norton 2005 and 2006, and while it is a resource hog, it does a good job. I have seen numerous counts of Norton not finding spyware or a virus on a system, while another program like AVG does find it, however I have never ever seen that to be the case (yet).
AVG is pure crap from what I have seen. I have run both on infected systems and Norton did a better job of cleaning things out.
AVG is free of course (although they have pay versions) and it IS better than NO protection.
I am also testing Windows Live OneCare on Vista RC2 right now, and it seems to work pretty well.
I am not going to intensionally get a virus to see how it performs, but it has everything in a nice neat package. You can even run a tuneup that will scan for viruses, clear out unneeded files (like temp stuff), defrag your HD if needed, backup files you set to be backed up, and check MS for critical security updates.
I think OneCare is the major reason these AV vendors are pissed at Microsoft. Because being that onecare is an MS product it will have access to whatever it needs to, while the other vendors will be left out in the cold.
However if MS uses this PatchGuard, and keeps it updated well against possible intrusions, then the need to actually hook into the kernel to prevent such attacks might not be as important as it was before?
So patchguard locks out all access to the Kernel. Eliminating the need for a full fledged AV. And Symantec complains.
Gosh, I wonder why.
Talk English please. :ehh:Quote:
Originally Posted by NoteMe
Should something find its' way into the kernel, PatchGuard prevents any programs from getting in to fix it... one little leak in PG and there goes all security...
Everything relies on the strength of PatchGuard. The name itself somehow implies that access did exist, and now it's been patched. Which is not good.
Gosh, I wonder why.
Rule number 1
use legit windows
Rule number 2
use automatic updates
Rule number 3
stop downloading porn and warez from shady websites
problem solved ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
Look in the thread title. Rule of thumb is that all adjectives with more than one syllable use more/most, and not "-er" and "-est".
more stupider ;)
I agree. I barely notice it on my home rig and have never had a problem. Dishing on Norton is almost as trendy as dishing on MS, almost.Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
I've personally had a free 6 months free with norton security suite and as far as I'm concerned:
- Startup lag is not a issue. Ok maybe it is to some, but it's not the worst thing in the world
- The firewall is dreadful compared to free alternatives like ZoneAlarm, although ZoneLabs are starting to play up a bit with their software...
- The scanner on the NAV is appauling. It takes nearly forever to scan files just to pick up an odd one. I remember my friend saying that the only time Norton did work on his system was when he downloaded a virus intentionally (don't ask)
- The main MAIN reason I don't like Norton AV is that most simple home users go off and buy a PC and what does it come with ladies and gentlemen? Norton Security Suite - 6 months trial or some other trial package. So people who are new to computers are naturally fooled into thinking they have all-lasting protection on their PCs because they haven't looked hard enough. And then what happens when the trial runs out? "Oh, what happened? We have to pay now? I'd rather give people AVG than Norton Antivirus because it don't last forever... Well it's not going to last as long as AVG
- In terms of free software, it's not just AVG out there. Like I mentioned, you can get ZA and other firewalls, avast Antivirus (although personally I don't like it) and several other free antivirus suites. It's all a matter of looking!
- And finally, every single AV software is going to give you different results. In my view, there's no such thing as "best" AV because they will all be different when it comes down to the results. If I was to be sad enough to try and get every single trojan, every single worm, every single virus, then I can do a realistic comparison. It really boils down to personal opinion at the end of the day, but what I've been getting at is that from my personal experience and through others I've been with, Symantec aren't the best chip off the block. But then it's my opinion ;)
What, you're tired already from reading that paragraph? :p
Norton sucks.
just my opinion... McAfee is better.. so is CA (EZAV)
ZA is the worst piece of crap firewall ever made....
It made me pull so much hair out I am shocked I am not bald...
It caused my ASP.NET apps to stop working, even though it was totally disabled, set to NOT start with windows, and was not running as a process...
It was so annoying that I had to join their forums just to complain
http://forum.zonelabs.org/zonelabs/b...ssage.id=31911
your claim about the 6 month trial thing doesn't really hold much water, as when it does expire it lets them know they need to purchase a full copy.... So what, you have to pay for software here and there... isn't that what is keeping half of us on this forum employed?
you posted that on my birthday :)
I know.. it was a rant/happy birthday card to you ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
I've had ZA for monkey years now and it's never bothered me. I think it's the fact that you have to understand ZA and what it offers, and what you're fiddling with.
I can't believe that computer-savy people actually use software like ZoneAlarm and Norton Internet Security. Norton AV is slightly better, but not much. I don't need any software that integrates itself so tightly into my system; if you're smart and keep Windows updated, you'll probably never need antivirus software. And guess what? When you do need it, you can use something like PandaSoftware ActiveScan, which uses an ActiveX control to scan your computer from the browser. It's free, and it doesn't touch your system when you don't want it to.
</rant>
norton sucks and is too expensive
I'd say the same thing to you about Norton.Quote:
Originally Posted by kregg
60 bucks for 2 years for the whole security suite. Not expensive to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by MoE70
And no, I don't work for them. :D
Mine came with the computer...
Do as I do. Don't use a virus scanner. :wave:
Do as I do. Don't use the internet. :wave:
Not another MS argument. :cry:
I'm afraid it is starting to be like it. It's just that you can pull MS into any conversation :sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
Who'd want to?
Yeah, really; why bother? :ehh:Quote:
Originally Posted by kregg
Windows are better than AMDs!
Wow... that's not even a comparison...
Pull it into the conversation? The thread IS a Microsoft conversation :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by kregg
oh right whoops :blush:
Could kregg be any more stupid? :p
Here's another one...
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35254
Seems IE7 isn't nearly what they were piping it up to be...
I read the inq a good amount, but I also notice they are rather anti-MS on their site.
In the same way ars technica seems to be mac biased...
I mean marking points off IE7 because it only runs on Windows XP SP2 is rather silly (which isn't technically true since it runs on 2003 server and also on Vista)
Windows XP is 5 years old now.. if you are using a Windows version prior, its time to upgrade anyway... and if you are running XP and havent moved to SP2, its because you are running a pirated copy ;)
Guess who wasn't invited.Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
ummm zone alarm??
SP2 doesn't check activation keys, that was only SP1.Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
There's no excuse!
...use Linux.
you can also just download and install SP2 as an individual file.Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
I know it doesn't check keys, but after SP2, MS will try to push out WGA to you via automatic updates. Also a large portion of downloads on MS site require WGA checks before you can download them. (just like IE7 installation, or windowsupdate.microsoft.com)Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Also SP1 support is ending (or maybe it already did.. I know it was October 2006) so they will expect everyone to be SP2 or higher for continued XP support.