Symantec Norton Security

[Deleted Member 333v73x]

Basic Windows Tools

WITH other tools like Windows Disk Cleanup and CCleaner then it is not bad but relying on only it to keep your PC fast is not very wise.

 

[CySecy825]

WITH other tools like Windows Disk Cleanup and CCleaner then it is not bad but relying on only it to keep your PC fast is not very wise.

Agreed 100%

 

[Deleted Member 333v73x]

Update: Some more edits to the review.

 

[Alkajak]

I have voted Good. I am a huge fan of Norton's new product, but there are some serious drawbacks after testing for the past week or so.

1. It is far too reliant on its dynamic scan/SONAR. Static scan misses a lot.
2. Static scan for a single folder with 3-8 files in it, when it finds anything, takes 3-5x as long as ESET does for me.
3. SONAR/File Insight is sometimes very late to the party. Catches malware dynamically about 2 minutes after it is executed.

As far as signatures go, they are very good. They are keeping up-to-date.

 

[hjlbx]

3. SONAR/File Insight is sometimes very late to the party. Catches malware dynamically about 2 minutes after it is executed.

This is problem of file monitoring\tracking and Intrusion Detection System protections generally; Bitdefender, Webroot, etc suffer from same limitation.

Other problem I saw during testing was certain types of infections cause GUI errors and freezes during monitoring and remediation.

That being said, for someone who wants full-featured internet security suite, Norton is one of the better choices.

All security softs have their advantages, disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Noxx]

Symantec is top notch. If I had the money to shell out, I'd get a license in a heart beat. My only concerns are the cleaner/optimization features, as well as it's somewhat lackluster computer performance. However, again, if all you care about is PROTECTION, and you have a beefy computer, nothing comes close other than perhaps KASPERSKY or even COMODO if you're a more hands on kind of person.

 

[TheMalwareMaster]

This is problem of file monitoring\tracking and Intrusion Detection System protections generally; Bitdefender, Webroot, etc suffer from same limitation.

Other problem I saw during testing was certain types of infections cause GUI errors and freezes during monitoring and remediation.

That being said, for someone who wants full-featured internet security suite, Norton is one of the better choices.

All security softs have their advantages, disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses.

Really? I have always seen BD active threat control catching malware immedialy after is executed

 

[hjlbx]

Really? I have always seen BD active threat control catching malware immedialy after is executed

BD AVC is pretty good, but one can always find samples that don't trigger AVC.

None of these security softs are perfect protection - they are reasonably good protection.

I suppose it is one's own definition of what constitutes "reasonably good" that matters most to the individual.

 

[Crystal_Lake_Camper]

I voted 4 stars ( very good ) since the two days I have norton security installed , I hardly notice it on my system. I love the gui and the layout : very straight forward , download insight is top notch , as is sonar webblocker and their signature I do not care for the tuneup features I see them as excess bloat to an otherwise nice suite!

 

[Huchim]

I voted 5 because at this moment I want performance and speed, I have tested, BD, Kaspersky, ESET, AVIRA, Emsisoft, AVG, AVAST and norton is the best option, I use its backup feature (norton premium), and maybe it is very weak against USB malware but I use appguard so, my laptop is very fast

 

[safe1st]

Well, nice review @Tornado

But let see in about 40 minutes from now...

 

[jamescv7]

I vote Symantec Norton Security as 4 stars

• Strong Cloud protection and Sonar behavior as well
• Very efficient product on all way around
• Balance for starters and advance users
• Not so complicated to set it up, actually can be install and forget.
• Stability is to fine for majority of systems.

The disadvantage where the protection rely very much on cloud so the auto-protect which contains signatures are mediocre even though they have incremental updates hourly.

FP is normal to any product, and Norton suffered mild issues on that case.

 

[Deleted member 2913]

Norton Sonar, Bitdefender AVC, etc... sometime take little time to detect as some users reported here.
I think may be coz these technology has some kind of threshold, rules, etc... & reacts when any of the rules, policy, etc... is crossed by any stuffs/threats, etc...
These tech needs something to determine, they are BB & not HIPS.

 

[Nightwalker]

Norton Sonar, Bitdefender AVC, etc... sometime take little time to detect as some users reported here.
I think may be coz these technology has some kind of threshold, rules, etc... & reacts when any of the rules, policy, etc... is crossed by any stuffs/threats, etc...
These tech needs something to determine, they are BB & not HIPS.

Exactly !

 

[Morvotron]

@CySecy825 The scanning speed is quite fast compared to other vendors. A full system scan usually takes (on my system) around twenty minutes.

ARE YOU SERIOUS? GData today was almost 5 hours scanning

 

[Deleted Member 333v73x]

ARE YOU SERIOUS? GData today was almost 5 hours scanning

Yes I am serious, Norton scans every file on your system in about 20 minutes, 5 hours is absolutely ridiculous and stupid.

 

[omidomi]

Symantec is really great av, but i hate symantec, because they blocked iranian people
in fact its political issue between iran and usa but its very nasty that symantec blocked iranian people...if they obey usa govenment laws why they blocked people...

see:

why symantec why

 

[omidomi]

yes realy its too bad for we ( in iran ) we are iranian peapol not government .... so what we should do if we want use norton security ( but we are using now norton security in iran with vpn ... ) But wish norton symantec just let it go .. we love norton :|

VPNs yup
but many vpns was vanished by government , i have 2 licenses of Symantec and i can't use them
if u switch between real ip and fake ip(vpn) very much time,they make your ISP to suspected on u and listed your ip to dark ips ...

 

[hjlbx]

Norton Sonar, Bitdefender AVC, etc... sometime take little time to detect as some users reported here.
I think may be coz these technology has some kind of threshold, rules, etc... & reacts when any of the rules, policy, etc... is crossed by any stuffs/threats, etc...
These tech needs something to determine, they are BB & not HIPS.

The solutions use what is called "file tracking."

"File tracking" is based on proprietary algorithms. The algorithm generally inspects and monitors a whole host of factors - hash, file source, date of introduction, date created, digital signature, parent application, actions on system, network activity, etc, etc, etc. Based upon all these factors - once a file reaches a "threshold" - it is blocked.

It is imperfect software technology at this time - and over-reliance upon it will get a system infected.

The very best automated security software cannot best the manual administration of a system using HIPS + knowledge of malware behaviors - wherein the knowledgeable and experienced human is the behavior blocker.

 

[hoang2007]

Norton Security 2015 is light in terms of memory BUT application opening. I did a file-insight scan, a quick scan, and a full scan in the hope that Norton would skip clean files so it wouldn't slow application opening. Unfortunately, I was wrong; Norton didn't seem to have the 'Scan only new and changed files' feature like Kaspersky and Bitdefender and thus slowed everything down 3-4 seconds. Again, memory usage doesn't say anything about the impact of an antivirus software on our systems.
My OS: clean Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64 bit with all updates installed.