<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Norton Internet Security 2010 and Rogue Antivirus = Fail</title> <atom:link href="http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/</link> <description>Antivirus Reviews For 2011 / 2012, Tools and How To&#039;s</description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 03:52:00 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" /> <item><title>By: Rob</title><link>http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-6670</link> <dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 17:49:04 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-6670</guid> <description>I had McAfee from comcast for years and never had a problem. They switched to Norton a week ago and I got a nasty rogue antivirus that wouldn&#039;t let me run any apps - not even task manager. Ran a full system scan with updated Norton ( it was set for early load ) and it didn&#039;t find a thing, Booted in safe mode and mbam did the trick. Norton is incompetant</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had McAfee from comcast for years and never had a problem. They switched to Norton a week ago and I got a nasty rogue antivirus that wouldn&#8217;t let me run any apps &#8211; not even task manager. Ran a full system scan with updated Norton ( it was set for early load ) and it didn&#8217;t find a thing, Booted in safe mode and mbam did the trick. Norton is incompetant</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: butch</title><link>http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-5621</link> <dc:creator>butch</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:11:36 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-5621</guid> <description>kaspersky AV 2010,did not detect rogue (antivirus2010)&amp; allow it to enter in my friend&#039;s computer it disable KAV2010 &amp; would not update, we were able to download MBAM update &amp; scan it found 2 rouge &amp; 1 worm, rebooted the computer and its gone,kaspersky then able to update things going to normal again,thanks MBAM&#039; great job&#039;</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>kaspersky AV 2010,did not detect rogue (antivirus2010)&amp; allow it to enter in my friend&#8217;s computer it disable KAV2010 &amp; would not update, we were able to download MBAM update &amp; scan it found 2 rouge &amp; 1 worm, rebooted the computer and its gone,kaspersky then able to update things going to normal again,thanks MBAM&#8217; great job&#8217;</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Matthew</title><link>http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-4076</link> <dc:creator>Matthew</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:57:58 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-4076</guid> <description>Jimmy, how do you know its a rogue? Maybe there is a rogue calling itself Malware Defender 2009, but there is a legit software called Malware Defender 2.4. I&#039;m guessing someone decided to name a rogue software after a legit one and because lots of security software has the year as part of its moniker, many people would easily mistake the two and go for the rogue one as it has the current year in its name.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jimmy, how do you know its a rogue? Maybe there is a rogue calling itself Malware Defender 2009, but there is a legit software called Malware Defender 2.4. I&#8217;m guessing someone decided to name a rogue software after a legit one and because lots of security software has the year as part of its moniker, many people would easily mistake the two and go for the rogue one as it has the current year in its name.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: TheRyan95</title><link>http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-4075</link> <dc:creator>TheRyan95</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:51:37 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-4075</guid> <description>Well, Insight is just like ThreatCast in Comodo IS. It will need time to improve. But more people uses Norton, so it will go faster. I just hope that Symantec will win WAY more percentage of people&#039;s faith in them in there next years. But Norton did good on this test. Matt, you should retest Norton in March 2010. Might improve by then =DD</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, Insight is just like ThreatCast in Comodo IS. It will need time to improve. But more people uses Norton, so it will go faster. I just hope that Symantec will win WAY more percentage of people&#8217;s faith in them in there next years. But Norton did good on this test. Matt, you should retest Norton in March 2010. Might improve by then =DD</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Jimmy James</title><link>http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-4067</link> <dc:creator>Jimmy James</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:24:44 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-4067</guid> <description>&quot;Now I have PC Tools Firewall Plus (it scored 99% in the latest Matousec tests&quot;This site cannot be trusted - they gave a &#039;10+&#039; to a rouge product (Malware Defender 2.2.2)</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Now I have PC Tools Firewall Plus (it scored 99% in the latest Matousec tests&#8221;</p><p>This site cannot be trusted &#8211; they gave a &#8217;10+&#8217; to a rouge product (Malware Defender 2.2.2)</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: mohdo</title><link>http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-4065</link> <dc:creator>mohdo</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 04:02:19 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-4065</guid> <description>When I tested NAV 2010 it usually caught everything that did not have a signature. But some things it won&#039;t detect till it does a malicious activity. Did you restart the PC to see if the rogue modifys anything on boot up and blocks it? Can&#039;t wait to see the video review.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I tested NAV 2010 it usually caught everything that did not have a signature. But some things it won&#8217;t detect till it does a malicious activity. Did you restart the PC to see if the rogue modifys anything on boot up and blocks it? Can&#8217;t wait to see the video review.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: mastershake</title><link>http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-4063</link> <dc:creator>mastershake</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 03:25:16 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-4063</guid> <description>why single out norton? in your reviews and i have watched almost all of them MANY of the ones you have tested let these rouges run. im just not sure why the singling out of nortons was needed. nis 2010 has caught a number of rouges using sonar for me and stopped them from installing. it usually catches them even before that though...</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>why single out norton? in your reviews and i have watched almost all of them MANY of the ones you have tested let these rouges run. im just not sure why the singling out of nortons was needed. nis 2010 has caught a number of rouges using sonar for me and stopped them from installing. it usually catches them even before that though&#8230;</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Nick</title><link>http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-4062</link> <dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:52:41 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-4062</guid> <description>Didn&#039;t you find a similar issue with Kaspersky? It caught the malware but the AV assigned it a low security risk and so it was allowed to download and install.I thought I remember something similar happening in one of your videos.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Didn&#8217;t you find a similar issue with Kaspersky? It caught the malware but the AV assigned it a low security risk and so it was allowed to download and install.</p><p>I thought I remember something similar happening in one of your videos.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Nick</title><link>http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-4061</link> <dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:39:12 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-4061</guid> <description>Didn&#039;t you find a similar issue with Kaspersky? It caught the malware but it was given a low security risk (by default) so it was allowed to download and install.I thought I remember seeing something like this in one of the videos.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Didn&#8217;t you find a similar issue with Kaspersky? It caught the malware but it was given a low security risk (by default) so it was allowed to download and install.</p><p>I thought I remember seeing something like this in one of the videos.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: james</title><link>http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-4060</link> <dc:creator>james</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:08:30 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/#comment-4060</guid> <description>im having trouble accessing the forums i am able to log in everything i try to go on it just says this board is unavilable</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>im having trouble accessing the forums i am able to log in everything i try to go on it just says this board is unavilable</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 26/35 queries in 0.014 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 595/603 objects using disk: basic

Served from: remove-malware.com @ 2012-02-11 22:21:55 -->
