Queries about Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition and Client Firewall
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: fat.charlie on 7 Jan 2010 10:01 On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:55:29 -0500, "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote: >From: "Little Charlie" <littlecharlie.blues(a)gmail.com> > >| David have you personally installed any NAV 2009 /2010 or NIS 2009 / >| 2010 products yourself? Every reviewer I have read -and- my own >| experiences show the old tired "Norton is bloatware" (which is never >| supported with data but just a shoot-from-the-hip 'parroting' much like >| a Macaw) argument to be baseless since Symantec's 2009 product line >| offering. So..have you tried them for yourself and haven't you read the >| reviews and test data such as vbuletin and icsa? Been away for a few >| years from this group David and smiled when I saw your posts and >| chuckled at your same old worn-out regurgitated Norton-bashing >| 'promulgations' > >People give me their PCs to clean. All various notebooks and desktops. Besides the >factor I got their PCs because they were infected, those with the various flavours >Norton/Symantec are noticibly hindered by the retail versions. You can see and feel the >OS sluggishness (this includs Norton 360). The sluggishness is not noted on the >enterprise versions. Albeit the versions with the Symantec FireWall can become >problematic. > >Since their ability catch most malware is low, they get removed and replaced with Avira >AntiVir and MBAM. David this is baseless 'proof'. What is DOES NOT do is test or rate in any way the integrity of Norton products ( 2009/2010 line). What it DOES DO is to once again affirm that if people launch anything and everything they can click on and allow malweare full access, then certainly they will be infected REGARDLESS of the AV used. MOREOVER the point I took exception to in the first place was your tired old chant about 'Norton bloatware' NOT Norton detection. The Norton 2009 / 2010 line is very light on resources. So..I ASK AGAIN have you read the test reviews and AV comparitive test that clearly show this new era of Norton security products? Maybe you should do your own tests and take actual hard , cold data. Instead of yoyur endless Norton bloatware mantra.
From: David H. Lipman on 7 Jan 2010 16:18 From: <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> | David this is baseless 'proof'. What is DOES NOT do is test or rate | in any way the integrity of Norton products ( 2009/2010 line). What it | DOES DO is to once again affirm that if people launch anything and | everything they can click on and allow malweare full access, then | certainly they will be infected REGARDLESS of the AV used. | MOREOVER the point I took exception to in the first place was your | tired old chant about 'Norton bloatware' NOT Norton detection. The | Norton 2009 / 2010 line is very light on resources. So..I ASK AGAIN | have you read the test reviews and AV comparitive test that clearly | show this new era of Norton security products? Maybe you should do | your own tests and take actual hard , cold data. Instead of yoyur | endless Norton bloatware mantra. I have done my own tests and I don't change what I posted. I suggest you ignore me. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: fat.charlie on 7 Jan 2010 17:53 On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:18:42 -0500, "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote: >From: <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> > >| David this is baseless 'proof'. What is DOES NOT do is test or rate >| in any way the integrity of Norton products ( 2009/2010 line). What it >| DOES DO is to once again affirm that if people launch anything and >| everything they can click on and allow malweare full access, then >| certainly they will be infected REGARDLESS of the AV used. > >| MOREOVER the point I took exception to in the first place was your >| tired old chant about 'Norton bloatware' NOT Norton detection. The >| Norton 2009 / 2010 line is very light on resources. So..I ASK AGAIN >| have you read the test reviews and AV comparitive test that clearly >| show this new era of Norton security products? Maybe you should do >| your own tests and take actual hard , cold data. Instead of yoyur >| endless Norton bloatware mantra. > >I have done my own tests and I don't change what I posted. > >I suggest you ignore me. OK David I will ignore you as you have suggested. I find it rather shallow and disingenuous of you sir to make misleading comments and recommendations about security matters guised as fact to others and then when asked to substantiate your claims and recommendations with data, you cannot or will not do so. It is pathetically transparent. David, I believe you're full of cow manure. My parting remark is that in the'Real World' of accountability those that put forth advice and claims as fact are then obligated to substantiate them when asked to do so. It's called credibility and FYI sir, even self-respect. Apparently in 'David's World' being forthright and accountable are still yet to be acquired moral values. -ps consider yourself personally ignored..but not your baseless and unsubstantiated posts.
From: Leythos on 7 Jan 2010 23:49 In article <989a212a-953a-4f5f-9efc- 88429436fdfa(a)a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, emil_lam(a)lycos.com says... > > Hi, > > My computer have Symantec Norton Antivirus Corporate Version > 10.1.4.400 & Symantec Client Firewall Version 8.7.4.79 installed. My > system administrator told me that Symantec's antivirus software were > among the worst commercial product in the market. Was my friend's > comment true(His company used F-Secure product)? How F-Secure > antivirus & internet security products compared to Symantec? > > How Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition differs from other non- > Corporate Edition (e.g. Norton AntiVirus 2007,2008)? > > Tks! While you dismiss David's experience and knowledge, you might want to listen to him and myself. I've used Symantec Corporate Edition products on thousands of computers since version 7.6 came out. In that time I've never (until last month) had a single malware compromised computer on any network we've designed and managed, while managing it. I've seen thousands of compromised computers, both when we take over a network and when we work on home computers for company owners. In my decades of experience I had not found a product that worked better for my own system or my clients UNTIL last month. Keep in mind, I detest their HOME product line, and they've had a few issues where V9 borked a lot of things, 10.(can't remember), would corrupt user profiles, etc... I had a machine in one of my DMZ networks, no HTTP filtering, and it was running SEPP 11.5, the latest and greatest, all the tools and up-to- date. I was logged on as a local Admin, browsed to a website, spelled it incorrectly, and was compromised in seconds without having to click another thing. Symantec didn't even alert to it, a full scan in Safe Mode didn't remove the multiple malware... To make a long story very short, I cleaned it up, uninstalled SEPP, installed Avira, it fould more, cleaned it, and then went back to the website that compromised the system - Avira (FREE) blocked the attack, alerted, kept the computer safe.... I have moved all of my computers and started moving clients computers to Avira PAID versions and will not switch back to Symantec until I can prove in my lab that it will stop drive-by attacks that should never have been able to compromise a computer. Do I have strict technical stats published somewhere - NO Do I have details for you to inspect - NO Do I have this information validated by a third-party - NO You are welcome to believe what you want - the information is for you to ignore if you want, but you have no reason to argue against the data because you don't have enough information to base your argument on. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: fat.charlie on 8 Jan 2010 00:51
>Do I have strict technical stats published somewhere - NO >Do I have details for you to inspect - NO >Do I have this information validated by a third-party - NO Thank you for validating your credibility!! LOL!! > |