Norton Internet Security / Norton AntiVirus

[hok]

RE nis 2009 These are just the chnages from 2008 to 2009

So, what did Symantec’s developers do? Well, there are more than 300 changes to the product, with Symantec going over every line of code, every byte of memory and every millisecond of time previously used up to deliver security.

http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/fuzzy-logic/20361-norton-internet-security-2009--the-whoa...

As opposed to NIS 2006, the 2009 software version requires 300% less disk space

.http://news.softpedia.com/news/Beta-Test-the-Latest-Norton-2009-Security-Software-90033.shtml

Nis 2006 is a completely different animal than NIS 2012

[ruste50]

I live in st. Lous, MO. I just heard on the 10:00 news that Norton is HACKED!!!  I have been a Norton customer for at least six years and am thoroughly satisfied with Norton's service.  Is Norton STILL SAFE?  Can I continue to use Norton Antivirus.  Please advise.

[KMoore]

It's something everyone is watching hopeful that Norton will tell us anything we need to be aware of.  They had earlier indicated the source code was outdated.

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46028273/ns/technology_and_science-security/t/symantec-says-hackers-stol...

[Kremmen Super Contributor]

I trust that the source code is now on an 'air-gap' system so outside intrusion is impossible.

My companies source certainly is.

Very worrying

[bleeper24 Super Spam Squasher Mobile Master (Norton Mobile Users Discussion Forum)]

An interesting item from "Sophos naked Security " and some very valid comments to be read  here........

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/01/19/symantec-source-code-breach-saga-continues/

A couple of the comments from the article below..........

[QUOTE] Yes, I am pointing fingers - at the crooks. Not at "the hackers"; at the crooks. That's what they are. This is a cybercrime. Symantec is the victim.

And I'm on Symantec's side in that I hope the company can work out what happened, collect some usable evidence, and help law enforcement to identify, locate, charge, prosecute and convict those responsible.

I accept that's unlikely. But it's not impossible. So let's live in hope.

By the way, if ever you're tempted to look at stolen source code, my recommendation is: don't do it. Here are my reasons:

* If you're interested in learning from source code, there's plenty of good open source software which you can study freely and lawfully.

* Great lumps of five-year-old commercial source code aren't, for the most part, terribly interesting. Granted, you'll probably find a couple of comic comments, and perhaps even an AWOOGAH! or two. That's about as riveting as it gets.[END]

Amen to all that

[wilson1926]

i saw the same news report in StL last night. I have Norton 360, 5.0 and cannot get an answer from Norton on-line support on what I should do.....

[Snodgrass]

hello, no one got back to me as to wether my nis '12 is safe. I'm a bit worried.

tom martins

[AllenM Norton Fighter]

Hi Tom,

The Symantec article below explains that except for pcAnywhere, Norton Customers should not have any increased risk. Please refer to the article below for the official statement.

http://www.symantec.com/theme.jsp?themeid=anonymous-code-claims

Hope this helps.

Best wishes.

Allen

[Mitka Spam Squasher]

I'd also like to add that Norton was completely rewritten from it's 2009 line of security products.

Sure there may tidbits of similar code but it wouldn't be of any significance.

According to the official press release; current users of Norton security products are safe.

Mitka

[smoddelm]

Two things concern me about the statement from Symantec:

1.  They say "Upon investigation of the claims made by Anonymous regarding source code disclosure, Symantec believes that the disclosure was the result of a theft of source code that occurred in 2006."  I wish they would / could say "knows that" instead of "believes that."  Where does the phrase "believes that" really leave the user?
2.   They say "Symantec and Norton customers should not be in any increased danger of cyber attacks resulting from this incident."  I would feel more confident if they said "are not in any increased danger" instead of "should not be in any increased danger."

As far as the source code being so old that it is not of concern, see the comment from the former McAfee executive here: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Symantec-Confirms-Source-Code-Stolen-in-2006-Breach-It-Didnt-Know-...

Of course it's from a former executive of a major competitor (former, though, not current), so who knows what to make of it.

I've been looking at other AV / Security programs "just in case," and it seems that Norton is the only one that consistently gets high ratings from pretty much everyone - independent labs, major tech mags, etc., in terms of both protection and impact on system performance.  I've always read that it's very problematic to run two AV programs at the same time, but one program - Webroot - specifically says that it can be run alongside all major security programs.  So I'm thinking about running it as a "just in case."  Any idea whether this would be a good idea, bad idea, or...?