Jump to content

EliteKiller

Members
  • Content Count

    144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by EliteKiller

  1. I submitted this to Symantec yesterday and received a reply: We have analyzed your submission. The following is a report of our findings for each file you have submitted: filename: Install802.exe machine: AVCAutomation: result: See the developer notes Developer notes: Install802.exe Our automation was unable to identify any malicious content in this submission. The file will be stored for further human analysis
  2. SJP, please see this thread: https://forums.superantispyware.com/viewtopic.php?t=516
  3. EliteKiller

    Interface

    Even though I use XP Pro I disable all of the visual styles so that it looks like Windows 2000. SAS blends in nicely and it reminds me of MSCONFIG or System Properties when I use it. I rarely see the interface, so even if it was "pretty" like Spyware Doctor it wouldn't make a difference to me. To each his own, right? Most of the rogue anti-spyware apps have a nice looking GUI to lure in unsavvy users. My only suggestion for a graphical improvement would be to redesign the SAS company logo and use a different font. It looks like a 3rd grader designed it in MS Paint. The desktop icon has a lot of aliasing. A skilled designer could accomplish this task in less than 1 hour including multiple revisions. NVIDIA and Intel (maybe others) redesigned their company logos within the last 12 months. Nick, are you listening?
  4. Since when is Norton plural? I hear that all of the time and it never ceases to make me snicker.
  5. I get paid to clean infected computers so my comments are not entirely based upon charts, reviews, or forum feedback. They are also based on real world experiences that consist of dozens of different computers, operating systems, software configs, etc. My comments are not aimed at anyone not recommending Norton AV/IS 2007, or even their Corporate AV. You are free to recommend whatever you want, which again is based on your opinion. Those that assume NAV/NIS 07 is bloated with inferior detection rates are the only people that I have a problem with. It's sad to see that people let opinions get in the way of fact. Bah, I edited my post for clarity right when someone was posting again.
  6. Fact is that it use's what it uses when required= Fact! Isn't that true for any AV or AS, especially during real-time protection? Let me ask you this, how many pc's have you tested or used NAV/NIS 2007 on? What exactly are you basing your NAV/NIS bloat claims on? SAS uses more memory than NAV/NIS 2007, but as we all know it doesn't tax the system. My point is you can't base results on memory usage alone. Even then the memory usage by NAV/NIS 2007 is very low, and in Vista is uses even less when you compare it to XP. Earlier I posted links w/ screenshots to back this up so it's not just my opinion. Again, everyone has their opinion on what works best. I don't care how "expert" anyone is, people base their security recommendations to others upon an opinion. There's nothing wrong with that, but in the end it would be nice to see people be a little more open-minded about things. If you despise a product, don't put it dead last on a so-called reliable chart, which is what OITC has clearly done.
  7. Well, the whole Norton debate is pointless since everyone has their opinion on what they think works best. Simply because people that post their HJT logs and ask for malware removal assistance have Norton loaded doesn't tell you anything at all other than how to make an assumption. These people generally fail to keep their AV or AS updated, fail to use common sense while surfing the web or checking email, and in the end that is the source of the infection(s). I install quality malware removal tools on my clients pc's and unless there is an automatic update, or a scheduled scan, they will usually fail to do it themselves. You can only lead a horse to water...... However it's a fact that Norton 2007 products use less memory and resources than earlier versions. Those that disagree obviously do so out of spite and hearsay. nosirrah refers to a single biased website to show that Norton 2007 is bloated. I guess it must be a fact then. fatdcuk, I wasn't referring to the Inspector, who works for F-Prot, I was referring to the experts from AV-Comparatives. They aren't employed by any security firm, and there is little advertising on their site. If you or anyone else thinks that there is reason to question their opinions on respectable testing sites, their methodology, or their opinions then it would be nice to see facts back up any rebuttal that may come forth. In regards to the OITC chart, there is no denying that Fortinet, esafe and other front runners are known for excessive false positives. Panda has better detection than Kaspersky? Norton in dead last is predictable considering the people behind the OITC chart. Couple those results with the honeypot crap, junk files, and the entire chart is nothing more than opinionated BS that should be ignored.
  8. Please take a moment to read this entire thread regarding your OITC chart: http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=162088 Take note of the experts (the orange names) who confirm that your chart is unreliable. Corrupted samples, false positives, etc. Add that biased chart to go along with your Norton bashing, among other misinformation, and one has to wonder about your credibility not only as a poster, but as a Castle Cops "expert".
  9. This is because Symantec has a huge market share, and most people have never heard of Kaspersky, NOD32, etc. so they stick with a "brand name". These people getting infected aren't technically savvy either. I don't care what AV they have installed they will still get infected. Even legitimate websites are getting hacked and their ad servers are serving up exploits and other malware. Tom's Hardware was recently serving up ANi exploits. http://neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=40241 Norton AV/IS 2007 are just as efficient as Kaspersky when it comes to resource usage in XP/Vista. If you disagree try it for yourself and then report back. The ones complaining have other issues to resolve, or they are using an old version of Norton. I am a tech and service systems for a living. My shop easily cleans malware from 100+ systems each month. If you're uninstalling Norton 2007 products you have a lot to learn IMO. Supplement Norton with SAS, AVGAS, BOClean, or another trojan detector since that is what most people are getting hit with nowadays. I agree that the software is easy to corrupt. However the Norton removal tools (SYMNRT) works every time I use it. I see Blackviper in there so that article is biased to begin with. Trend more efficient than NOD32 in boot delay.....yea right. I've seen ESET's NOD32 take a month or two to add submitted samples. Check the Wilders Security forum for other complaints about ESET's backseat approach to adding samples to their signatures. I use Kaspersky on my rigs, and I use it to scan infected pc's when I service them. KAV also misses its fair share of malware. Nothing is 100% I don't have Norton AV on any of my pc's, but people that base their bashing on past products should be more open-minded. Industry experts in malware testing show that Norton has a superior detection rate. So in your professional opinion IBK over at AV-Comparatives and AV-Test.org aren't credible testing labs and their reviews should be ignored? I'm sure that your expertise far exceeds their intellect. SAS is meant to work alongside an AV and not replace it. I think Nick will also confirm this to be the case.
  10. 1) If you open task manager what processes are using 70-90%? 2) Have you tried to delete the files thru Safe Mode? You can also use a program called Killbox or Unlocker to delete them. Go to majorgeeks.com to get the tools. 3) What other real-time anti-malware tools do you have installed? 4) Have you tried SAS 3.6?
  11. I am not a Norton fan, but I assure you that NAV & NIS 2007 are not resource hogs. Don't just take my word for it, add up the running processes in XP and/or Vista and you'll find that it's extremely resource friendly and uses little ram. In fact it uses around 35MB in XP and less than 10MB in Vista. Proof: http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=173875 As far as the detection rates are concerned, the PC World test that was mentioned earlier was performed by AV-Test.org which is one of the most respected independent testing labs out there. You'll also find that AV-Comparatives.com is another credible site that shows Norton to have a high detection rate that rivals Kaspersky. The http://winnow.oitc.com/AntiVirusPerformance.html chart is crap since they use corrupted samples and some of the top performers are notorious for false positives (fortinet, esafe, etc.) Since nothing is 100%, and Norton has been a pig since 2004, it's no wonder people continue to bash it. However Symantec listened to the complaints and showed us a refined product for 2007. If only McAfee could do the same. I highly recommend using SAS to supplement your AV. I install Kaspersky on my clients infected computers and it also misses a lot of malware. SAS usually picks up the rest, along with the smitfraudfix, roguefix, combofix, and other reputable malware removal tools. Again, nothing is 100%. FWIW I do not have Norton on any of my pc's, but I felt compelled to clear up some of the misinformation in this thread.
×
×
  • Create New...