Tech0utsider wrote:
I wonder why we are all using Norton. It is obviously the biggest target out there, and like NOD32's slogan: big brand names don't stop malware ...
Isn't that too true?
I'm sorry for being a jerk; I just wanted to point out some of the problems and throw a couple of questions your way.
Now, can you answer the questions?
Are the ones above the questions you were talking about? Elsewhere you mentioned six questions. Were they directed at me? I don't read this in threaded outline, so I am just guessing where this was placed. And I don't see six questions.
But let's see if I can answer the question you asked.
Why do I keep using Norton? Because I have faith in the product. I've been seeing it improve over the past years. It used to be on a par with McAfee, for example, but now has left it in the dust. I like Symantec's strategy of pulse updates. It's challenging because they have to achieve something like zero-response time. And that will be the real problem. So much malware; so many submissions; so few employees; so little time. They need better automated detection. I think this is possible even though it will never match human analysis. I am not concerned that Norton is a target. Maybe I should be; but I think it is better at defending itself, too; so I need to see how that plays out.
Norton was back of the pack in this instance. But I also know that Norton was head of the pack in numerous tests and that my own experience with it up to now has been satisfactory. I think with people like you constantly challenging Symantec in intelligent ways that Symantec could develop better strategies for analysis and response. This, of course, is up to them; but I want to see where this leads to.
Next-to-worse case for me is something I can live with. I am always ready (even if reluctant) to go backwards as much as necessary and reimage.
Worse case is scary. Identify theft and all that that can lead to. But from what I have been reading, that has been happening in an undetected way for a year-and-a-half now on machines that have been turned to zombies. Undetected by any security program. So, it isn't the noisy, nasty, I can make-your-machine-stop-dead malware that worries me; it is the silent you-don't-even-know-I-am-here stuff that gives me nightmares.
For all either of us know, we might already be infected. And those situations where computer A seems to have the same configuration as computer B and yet computer A never crashes, but B does it all the time, that might be the result of one these viruses being in place. And nothing is going to help -- not Norton, not Malwarebytes, not anything -- since the malware hasn't yet been identified.
Anyway, for now it's Norton.
BTW:
Eventually, some things are going to happen. I give it about 2 to 5 years. The internet is going to become restricted: Any country or region that does not have laws regulating internet behavior will not be allowed to be part of the internet. We will limit privacy rights: As more and more businesses and government work become absolutely dependent of a safe internet, the ability to hide who does what will become regulated. Nodes on the network will not allows unsigned traffic and signatures will be validated right back to the original source. Try to send something over the internet that does not match your signature and you will be silently flagged and soon there will be a knock at your door ... I don't advocate this, but it is inevitable. It's easy to sneer when it's a large corporation; but it's sad, even tragic, when it happens to someone who can't afford or comprehend the damage. Distributors of malware will be treated much the same way as drive-by shooters, and for much the same reason. Not because they are hurting people and businesses that can take care of themselves, but because the greatest victims are the ones who are most innocent.
mij
N360 2013, v.20.1.0.24; Win7 Pro, SP1 (32 bit), IE 9, Firefox 14, No other active securityware
