Norton Internet Security / Norton AntiVirus

[huwyngr Norton Fighter]

Michaell

As I've said to Pieter I could swear I'd seen if in a post of his and so I was reminded of that when I saw your reference to it as if you'd copy/pasted from the original.

But my bio-RAM has its moments .....

[michaell Symantec Employee]

@huwyngr, I retyped that in my own words and when I typing I made that typo. In any regards I hope we have cleared that  missunderstanding up.

[huwyngr Norton Fighter]

---

michaell wrote:

@huwyngr, I retyped that in my own words and when I typing I made that typo. In any regards I hope we have cleared that  missunderstanding up.

---

Completely so far as I am concerned -- my mistake for not looking back to sources ....

[Floating_Red]

---

SGFC wrote:

Read here ~> http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Internet-Security-Norton/Quick-Scan-not-quick-at-all/m-p/45019...

---

The comment by PieterV, michaell, about it is no longer required to Run a Full System Scan is not helpful/mis-leading.  A Full System Scan should still be completed twice-a-week, or at least once-a-week as it covers all of your computer, and should be Completed to make sure you really are Threat-free.  Even if a Threat isn't active, I wouldn't want that on my System!

With regard to the Quick Scan, it is excellent that Symantec have increased the areas it Scans, as this is the first part of the Full System Scan, which I believe has been long over-due as it increases protection.  Well done!  Hope to see this being continued in future Years.

[car825 Super Contributor]

What is the consensus on whether or not a full system scan needs to be run and if it does, how often?

[AllenM Norton Fighter]

---

killyourtv wrote:

From what I can tell, 2012 will pick up the scan settings from 2011 if you do an upgrade from within 2011, so, if 2011 was set to "Weekly" then that's what you'll see in 2012. The default for 2012 during Beta was "Monthly". I've set mine for Monthly since I feel that is often enough with the Quick Scans running regularly.

---

I believe this is true. I had installed the verison of BETA which was just before the RTM version and done it by NOT choosing to save the settings from my previous version (2011) and indeed 2012 had defaulted to once per month. When I performed the upgrade it retained my current setting of once per week.

It is all about what your previous setting was in 2011 or whatever you were on prior to 2012.

As a couple of others have said in this thread I immediately changed my FULL scan to once per month after installation of 2012. I think it is really a personal choice what one feels comfortable with in terms of the frequency of FULL scans.

I am seriously considering changing it to once per quarter before too long.

There have been quite a few threads in the past where Symantec has stated that the importance of FULL scans had already been greatly reduced even prior to 2012 and now with the Rootkit integration I believe this is even more true!

I remember it being stated in other threads in the past that one reason why FULL scans remained (especially at a frequency of once per week) is because most people just naturally tend to feel that a FULL scan is more complete and gives them better peace of mind.

That belief is slowly changing over time in my opinion. Long gone are the days when FULL scans needed to be done every day to be truly safe. As the amount of data on your hard drives increases over time (exponentially increases I might add!) the importance of alternate technologies to augment or even replace regular FULL system scans becomes obvious. Otherwise your computer would be doing almost nothing but FULL scans at some point.

When you combine things like the enhanced Quick Scan with things like SONAR, Reputation, auto-protect and all the other things, it has indeed greatly lessened the importance of doing FULL system scans.

Full system scans are still important but I think mainly in cases where you believe you might already be infected.

In the end I think it is truly a personal choice as to how often to continue running FULL system scans.

Just my two cents worth!

Best wishes.

Allen

[Floating_Red]

Hi, Allen,

I still rate Full System Scans as important.  This is from personal experience with Symantec Products.  I would say that about 90% of all Threats Detected were through a Full System Scan.  I would also like to point out that Security Companies are reacting to the advancement of Threats so, just because one Upgrades to the Latest Version, if you think about it, this will bring the customer on the same level as the technologies the Bad Guys are using.  Just something to think about.

[AllenM Norton Fighter]

---

Floating_Red wrote:

Hi, Allen,

I still rate Full System Scans as important.  This is from personal experience with Symantec Products.  I would say that about 90% of all Threats Detected were through a Full System Scan.  I would also like to point out that Security Companies are reacting to the advancement of Threats so, just because one Upgrades to the Latest Version, if you think about it, this will bring the customer on the same level as the technologies the Bad Guys are using.  Just something to think about.

---

HI Floating_Red,

I disagree to an extent. Some of what full system scans detected before are now integrated into quick scans I believe.

I do agree that it is a game of reaction to a large degree but keep in mind that technologies are being added and improved upon all the time. Behavioral detection is getting better and better as are other technologies being used by Norton.

I am also just making the point that we have already seen over the last several years that full system scans are no longer needed at the frequency they used to be. Don't you recall the day when full system scans needed to be done virtually every day?

Also, when it comes to a Zero day threat which is to a large degree what we are talking about here, it is unlikely that a full system scan is going to catch it if things like behavioral detection and the other technologies are not able to. The best chance of catching a true Zero day virus, worm, what have you is through a really robust behavioral detection algorithm.

Also, as I mentioned before, full system scans are most useful when you think you might already be infected. Then a full system scan is definitely warranted because it will do a more complete check of the files on your computer than a quick scan.

But that is when something has already slipped through your defenses and you are now trying to catch it after the fact. So my earlier point is meant to say that to truly stop the infection (which means before it plants itself on your system) is through things like behavioral detection, IPS, auto-protect, etc.

Allen

[Floating_Red]

Yes, I agree with you that Behavioural Systems and I.D.S. has improved, and Symantec have even started to Release the I.D.S. Updates, on average, three times a week.  However, I believe there will still be Threats that slip through these as you pointed out and, yes, this is when a Full System Scan is required; remember that Quick Scan only Scans the most-active/commonly-used area for Threats, which doesn't mean that ALL Threats palnt themselves there.  I feel much safer with the Norton 2012 Products, and I am reviewing how often I do Full SystemScans.  It also depends on what the ThreatCon Level is, and what is happening In-The-Wild, how often I do Full System Scans, and depending on the seriousness and ThreatCon Level, may do at least one Full System Scan per day. 

In my view, to only do a Full System Scan when you think you are Infected is flawed.  A reason for this is folks are nowadays less-likely to notice any impact on their system, and this is how Threats have evolved.  I have Completed a Full System Scan as a routine Task, and the F.S.S. has Detected Threats which I didn't think were there, in other words, I didn't think I was infected.  This is why I would recommend you to re-think about changing your Frequency of your Full System Scan, as I would recommend that you keep at Monthly at the very least, but this is of course your choice as the option is there, which is what I like about Symantec: They let you have control over most parts of the Product; would like to see a few more options being added/modified, but that's for another discussion.