Norton Internet Security / Norton AntiVirus

[bjm_]

Hello PieterV

Floating_Red wrote

When it is set to "Aggressive", if it Detects a File that looks Suspicious, for example, it will Remove it from your system, whereas, if it is on "Normal", this File may not be Detected as it is less aggressive.

PieterV writes

[...]  I just want to clear one thing up; boot time protection settings do not affect the "aggressiveness" of detection, it only affects when protection starts in the boot sequence.

So, your point (if I may) is that 'Aggressive' will start protection earlier in the boot sequence and 'Normal' will start protection later in the boot sequence. 

May I presume then that 'Aggressive' will noticeably slow boot up and 'Normal' is the default solely for consideration to system performance.   'Aggressive' will offer earlier protection with the only detractor slower boot time.

[AllenM Norton Fighter]

Hi Bjm,

Aggressive mode does result in somewhat slower startup time but from testing I have done it is almost negligible.

From NIS Help regarding Normal mode:

---

Provides you enhanced protection during your computer start time without compromising your computer's boot performance.

When you set this option to Normal, the drivers and plug-ins start functioning during the computer start time before their specified time delay.

This configuration is the default setting as it ensures better boot performance along with good security levels.

---

Allen

[ade0410]

---

AllenM wrote:

Hi Bjm,

Aggressive mode does result in somewhat slower startup time but from testing I have done it is almost negligible.

So do you recommend setting it to aggressive then?  I may try this and see what impact it has on my boot time.

Thanks for the advice.

[AllenM Norton Fighter]

HI ade0410,

I recommend the Normal setting. Though on my system the aggressive setting did not make that much of a difference, there was still some. I did not use a stop watch to time it or anything but I got the impression it was less than around 30 seconds. Different computers will have somewhat different results I'm sure.

I think Normal setting provides the right balance between protection and speed.

Hope this helps.

Best wishes.

Allen

[bjm_]

Hello AllenM et al,

thanks for chiming in...

Guess, I was hoping PieterV would chime back and confirm that I understood his message.

Still unsure and it would appear others may be as to 'Aggressive' ....the term 'Aggressive' conjures up Scan - 'Aggressive' / Sonar 'Aggressive' and detections - false-positives.  So, the info from Floating_Red was readily received and understood and seemingly logical. 

PieterV presented a differing view and understanding for the term 'Aggressive'.

Granted, 2011 may use different terminology...

'Aggressive' is still a poor choice of verbiage IMO for protection that starts earlier in the boot sequence.   As per PieterV and also per PieterV 'Aggressive' has no connection to detections.  Who would not want Norton to always aggressively protect them.  Why would I opt for just normal protection if aggressive protection is a safe viable option....unless, if the detractor is unacceptable system performance.   Appears, as if Symantec is too focused on having the lightest app perhaps to overcome past rep as heavy.   OK with me...but, not every user is still running a Pentium or a 386.  Current systems (as you know) are exponentially faster than just a few years ago.

Granted, default is always recommended.  But, as I prefer NIS over 360 in part because ~ "tweakability" ...for the NIS "tweak factor" to be of value.  The user has to know with clarity and certainty what each tweak choice will do.  IMO

Thnx

[AllenM Norton Fighter]

Hi Bjm_,

There is no mention anywhere of Aggressive changing any detection characteristics. Everything indicates that only the starting point at which the protection modules are loaded are changed with this setting.

I do agree that the word "Aggressive" is not the best choice of words.

You might want to post a suggestion for this to be changed in the Ideas Board.

Best wishes.

Allen

[bjm_]

Hi AllenM

re > You might want to post a suggestion for this to be changed in the Ideas Board.

The "Help" info has been suggested as lacking for some time...

....the use of terminology such as "Exonerated and Convicted" ...

....Help needs a Symantec to native tongue dictionary...IMO  *(I know off topic)

wonder why 

Floating_Red wrote

When it is set to "Aggressive", if it Detects a File that looks Suspicious, for example, it will Remove it from your system, whereas, if it is on "Normal", this File may not be Detected as it is less aggressive.

OK...I will post my opinions in the Ideas Board.

Cheers and Thnx

[PieterV]

We used the term "aggressive" because we have used the same term in several other categories, i.e. we did not have to invent a new term, we did not have to describe a new term, and we did not have to translate a new term.

The same terms are sometimes used in different connotations, and the meaning applies to the particular context.

Consider "Aggressive" in the context of boot time protection to apply to how early in the boot we start, not what we do when we start or how we scan when we are running.

Aggressive boot time protection is similar to AP early load in previous releases, but is even more "aggressive", meaning that not just AP starts as a boot driver (same time as storage devices become available, meaning we see all file IO from boot time), other protection technologies also start very early.

As with AP early load in previous releases, when a reboot is required to remediate a threat, aggressive boot is automatically enabled for the next boot, this allows us to prevent reinfection by threats that start running very early.

Normal is a reasonable balance between protection and boot time performance.

Off is optimized for boot time performance, meaning we start later in the boot sequence (similar to many other products).

Pieter

[Victek]

I would appreciate a more definitive explanation of the difference between Normal and Agressive Boot Time Protection settings.  Currently this option creates confusion which is similar to the Early Load option in 2010.  In that version the default was OFF and some people said that was OK because NIS would turn it ON automatically when rebooting the computer to remove malware.  The question though is if it didn't improve security to have Early Load ON why include it as an option?  Now in 2011 we have Normal and Agressive options in addition to OFF, and I have the same question.  Without a clear explanation - which perhaps must come directly from the programmers - there is no logical basis for making a choice.  Over all I think NIS is a great program, but I would like to see more detailed explanations of features for us geek types.

[drshlomo]

Victek Hi,

If you'll read the comments above, plus the help section for this item, I think you'll have all the info you require to make an educated decision.

drshlomo.