I reviewed the installation, configuration and protection aspects of Norton Internet Security 2010. The video is my longest at 43 minutes.
Norton Internet Security 2010 Review
Previous post: FYI – Microsoft Security Essentials Beta Upgrade
Next post: Rogue AntiVirus is Going Green ;P
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
great review matt
As usual norton still does not impress me. I have been trying out microsoft security essentials for 1 month now and running back up scans and so far i am more impressed with it than what i seen in norton.
Bill D. No anti virus is perfect not even security essentials security essentials is very good in detection i agree but i use NIS2010 and norton has caught things security essentials has not but all anti virus software is different some can detect adware better than others like superantispyware is a really good rouge/adware detector.
Mhm yea kind of sad that the rouge at the end got through, but other wise it scored pretty good i guess.
But i keep my CIS 3.12 a little longer !-)
BTW, are you going to test the
Avast 5.0 Beta once Alwil have added the full database and features of course.
Or are you going to wait until late november when Avast 5.0 should be released as a final version?
Thanks,
I’m with Bill D on this.
Will always hate norton. why pay for crapware when there ares so many freeware that blows it away.I think they should fix the problems and then offer it to us for free and we will consider it! theu really owe us all an a opology for all the crappy years they charged us for there bloated slow crap ware. but can we ever forgive them . as you can see norton leaves a very bad taste in my mouth and Iam sure Iam not the only 1.they have no choice but to offer it for free when fixed and maybe they will get some respect back.
Matt, any chance you’ll start recommending LUA + KAfU + SRP + DEP? Seriously, you should be promoting this sort of stuff, and you know it haha.
I miss those disinfect-heavily-infected-machine reviews. But that’s better than nothing
@Max I agree with you about the bloated and bad years of Norton, but I do see that their software has improved a lot. Having said that I probably wouldn’t buy Norton again because of the past bad experiences.Once bitten…..
Bitdefender is another one that I wouldn’t trust again. I recently had to stop using their Internet security because of the bugs. Bitdefender fails to address the problems despite their forum being full of complaints. It’s just so annoying when the services stop responding constantly making the software as good as useless. I might as well have thrown my money down a public sewer lol
Anyway On topic, great review Matt.
Can’t really blame them for missing the rogue. They don’t generate any malicious actions so they can’t be detected in any other way than with signatures.
This just proves that AV software is on a level playing field…they all FAIL at some point and there are no winners! None can boast 100% detection, so why pay for something that can’t guarantee protection? That’s why having AV software alone is just not enough anymore. It’s imperative to have a second level of protection..(i.e. Sandboxie or Geswall, etc.)
@Thermalcake
Most AVs cannot remove the malware from a heavily infected machine. Most trojans come with rootkits and many AVs cannot remove rootkits. Therefore the machine will still be infected and the AV will look bad, not the best test. Antiviruses are made for prevention more than removal anyway.
@123zap:
The truth is those unaware users are installing AV while their machines are (heavily) infected already. I think this is a good test.
So, assuming a real life scenario, what would you use to get rid of this rogue that Norton is ignoring?
Gmer?
Combofix?
Malwarebytes?
Bootable AV like Avira, Dr. Web or Kaspersky?
@JJ – Malwarebytes
I have always been a Norton fan. I used their products for 10 years without a single problem or infection. In my opinion the system slowdown stuff is a myth because it never happened to me with any Norton product. As for the review, I was extremely impressed with the performance of NIS 2010. It blocked everything from installing except the last rogue. However, even that one was blocked from doing it’s intended action, getting your money, so I count that as a block as well. I don’t think Matt understands what the Insight component actually does. When it says something is untrusted, that doesn’t mean it’s bad. It simply means that not enough positive or negative input about that file has been received.It means it has not achieved trusted status with the Norton community. It is up to the user whether to trust it or not. If it was a known bad file, it wouldn’t even show in the list because it would not have been allowed to install.
I had been using NIS 2009 until the subscription ran out and I am currently using Comodo Internet Security because it’s free and provides a very high level of protection, but I am very impressed by NIS 2010
@Dch48
Sorry, but the Norton slowdown stuff is NOT a myth. It’s a well known fault of Norton, which even they have acknowledged. I’ve seen dozens of clients afflicted with a Norton install who were amazed at the difference when Norton was removed. It is like night & day.
Also, if you use Comodo IS, make sure you use some sort of HIPS protections. Comodo gets very low ratings as far as detection goes. I like Geswall myself.
I too agree with Dch48, I’ve been a Norton fan for years, Love there new 2010 just renewed my subscription, 3 computers, I also use Malwarebytes, Asquared,Superantispyware,spybotS&D.
Love all the video reviews Matt.
@malwarekilla
About a question that you often put: “Why if a program is untrusted, it is allowed to run?”
Practical example. Let’s say I want to download a keygenerator for an application I need to unlock.
Step 1: I use sandboxie to go to a warez site and I download the keygen I need.
Step 2: I make the keygen UNTRUSTED.
Step 3: I run the keygen (!!) and I get the serial key I need…
Because the program is untrusted, it can not touch my system, so any attempt to modify the registry etc etc is silently blocked by the anti-virus in the background. If the program is not closing itself at the end, and the anti-virus does not offer me a TERMINATE option, then it is still no problem, because the keygen will be simply gone after the next reboot… Being untrusted, it could not write the registry (among others) and it will not load automatically.
So, running untrusted programs is better. Why worry, since they can do no damage ? They are untrusted, restricted to do anything bad…
@malwarekilla: about the rogue in this review: it probably did nothing bad… you could probably uninstall it or just delete the file… After you set it to BLOCK I assume it will no longer load at startup…
The only thing wrong with Norton is the Norton Safe Web; it doesn’t Block Un-Safe Web Sites, Caution Web Sites or Suspicious Web Sites, which is really bad. No idea who thought that up.
I wish people would actually TRY N.I.S. 2010 instead of bashing it. It’s just won Product Of The Year! It’s really light on the system, with strong protection. Try it; you might be surprised at how light it is…