09-19-2011 02:13 PM - edited 09-19-2011 02:21 PM
Why Kaspersky is better in use (more user friendly) than Norton?
At least cause of:
1) it is blocks/freezes file using/activity and asks user about to delete file or not (critical as false detection or just infected self-extracted rar archives, which can be unpacked without execution, false detection on not mine USB sticks or other drives - It needed to go to the quarantine and restore, and if this file is in root folder or used path, it must be added into exclusions, and there is not just one file and there are 5 files? )
2) Kaspersky have very useful banner-blocker - flash, gif-png-jpg (images), and pop-ups or opening of new windows (norton have not, saw many such activity in supported Google Chrome web browser)
Here lists (in the first sight of kaspersky) very comfortable things that kaspersky can and norton can not.
May be such functionality/ability and posted below in further can be added into Norton to make it more comfortable, user-friendly? Why not? Why to stay as is?
09-19-2011 02:20 PM
Look at the Kaspersky cloud network (Kaspersky Security Network) work on the product page - many of technologies are used cloud, and every client product checks URL in the cloud (not only localy downloaded with updates) too, and there are other things.
09-20-2011 06:43 AM - edited 09-20-2011 06:45 AM
After subscroption expired Norton completely turn off all of its engines/modeles. So You are completely unsecure (with disabled firewall too). With Kaspersky - not - product stays in the last state - all components/modules (antivirus, program behaviour monitor, firewall, intrusion prevention) are active, but just not able to receive any updates. With Kaspersky your computer greatly more secure than with Norton for situation after product key expired.
So, after key is expired Norton give no any secured time to renew subscription.
I am not just write bad about Norton, by me it is more than normal product, but I want Symantec to make not so difficult-to-be-done improvements in it.
Thanks for attention!
09-21-2011 11:42 AM
Last time I used Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 and 2011 versions. it was vegy good in ad-blocking. no other banners/flash videos on a viewing pages. blocked about 18-19 banners from every 20.
>but I know that Norton is at least good at detecting malware.
hm.. can not say that it is fully true in my cases. tried it in offline mode on my work today. some threats (some rootkit, hidden service of svchost.exe -netsvc or close to it detected by GMER, and USB sticks worm) are still persists after norton work (2 full system scans and 3-4 reboots). 8-10 infections was recognised by NIS 188.8.131.52 (with no any updates, only with todays definition update file installed, oflline work), but work on my flash drive (used after cleaning and scanned after work) contain worm and GMER and HitManPro (offline scan) after Norton cleaning process are still reporting about svchost.exe -netsvc RootKit activity. Viruses there is only from local subnet and USB sticks, there is no internet connection. so viruses probably are old, or slightly old.
I began using NIS from 2009 version. and saw the works of every 2010, 2011, and a very little of 2012 work and can say that Norton is bad (yes, bad) in detecting of !active! infections, but Kaspersky and DrWeb can do it very good. they can easy, have such strong functionality to terminate active processes, norton have not. Norton 2010 in december 2009 was unable to stop Sality active infection. I start the infected file with NIS disabled and start NIS after 4-5 seconds after infection start. Norton and virus just load CPU for 100% for a 40 minites and I am giving up... reset the computer. Norton only prevent from starting Sality - detect it only while infection starts.
Such examples I saw only on my computer during 3 years about 5-8, not remember... I know what if after infection to install DrWeb or Kaspersky scanner or internet security suite (or different machine install and trying to infect it), they can easy detect and terminate active infection, but using much of resources of CPU and memory... but they can stop infection.
So for last 3 years of my experience I have opinion that Norton giving up more frequently against active infections.
May be to rewrite dtetection and termination modules of Norton? Then it will be more strong, but again: samples sended by me twice are still remaining undetected by Norton - about 10 samples was added into blacklist and next are not (for a month or more):
Again.. each company have each opinion what is malware. probably by Symantec it is not malware. I found it by using 3rd side programs on my computer, most was from my web browsers cache folder. Studing what it is and what it is donig whaile active - for me as I think - it is 100% malware.
During all time I upload it to analyse to Symantec server once in 4-6 days.
Probably it is all that makes Norton not the best for me like russian user.
I wish Symantec direction to heard it.
Thanks for attention and given and giving good security support in other very good sides of Norton!
was infected by and catched by Norton:
09-22-2011 09:45 AM
I was a long user of Kaspersky Internet Security and must say that it was a pretty nice program. The 2012 version definitely looked sleek and easy to use.
However, when I uninstalled Kaspersky from my laptop and installed Norton and did a full scan, Norton found 5 trojan horse viruses on the computer.
With that being said, user friendliness shouldn't override performance. Norton is still a top performer and is still getting great reviews.
No security product is perfect.
09-22-2011 08:04 PM
>>"No security product is perfect."<<
Hi eric3312 -
This is why Malwarebytes and even SUPERAntiSpyware are added to my security as backup for daily scans.
You need "layered protection" on any computer that is active on the internet these days.
Even the most seemingly trustworthy site can contain a driveby infection or tracking device that you never suspect as dangerous.
I still shop around and find that what one A/virus misses another can detect. This applys to all security.
That is why the areas for removal of malware are always active on all forums -
09-26-2011 01:36 AM - edited 09-26-2011 01:38 AM
Norton False Positives.
Ex: False detections of legitimate software as malware during a system scan (above industry average)