It seems that there are multiple layers of protection in NIS, which is undoubtedly good. I, personally, don't care what protects me, as long as I am safe.
But, as seen in NIS 2010 beta forum, it happens that whatever protects me in NIS is over zealous. It just deletes the file without asking user's permission. I agree that we have to get rid of bad file, but not necessarily of the file which is simply unknown. If there will be too many false positives users will opt out from Norton Community Watch making the whole project less efficient.
Sever issue mdturner mentioned, is very important to reliability of cloud based security approach. At the same time, I hope, falling back on old, signature based solution, should be enough till problems are resolved . It should be, however, very short time.
Norton for a long time was chastised by security geeks (see wilderssecurity.com) for being too heavy on system resources. It is not entirely true what Viral says in video that "if you wanted security you had to sacrifice performance'. In 2007 or 2008 there were solutions as effective as Norton, or better, without being heavy on the system.
AFAIK new Norton is much better. Reliability of cloud based approach to security is crucial as most of the competition will most likely go in the same direction.
It seems that there are multiple layers of protection in NIS, which is undoubtedly good. I, personally, don't care what protects me, as long as I am safe.
But, as seen in NIS 2010 beta forum, it happens that whatever protects me in NIS is over zealous. It just deletes the file without asking user's permission. I agree that we have to get rid of bad file, but not necessarily of the file which is simply unknown. If there will be too many false positives users will opt out from Norton Community Watch making the whole project less efficient.
Sever issue mdturner mentioned, is very important to reliability of cloud based security approach. At the same time, I hope, falling back on old, signature based solution, should be enough till problems are resolved . It should be, however, very short time.
Norton for a long time was chastised by security geeks (see wilderssecurity.com) for being too heavy on system resources. It is not entirely true what Viral says in video that "if you wanted security you had to sacrifice performance'. In 2007 or 2008 there were solutions as effective as Norton, or better, without being heavy on the system.
AFAIK new Norton is much better. Reliability of cloud based approach to security is crucial as most of the competition will most likely go in the same direction.