• Todas las Comunidades
    • Todas las Comunidades
    • Foros
    • Ideas
    • Blogs
Avanzado

Not what you are looking for? Ask the experts!

Kudos0

2010 Suggestion

Sometime SSR doesn't get around to signitures for every piece of malware under the sun. They say that SONAR should stop active malware in its tracks. I have not tested SONAR extensively; and I would rather not resort to the last line of defense which supposedly missed an icqbot and a virtumonde infection. However, NIS09 did not get around to a full system scan when NOD32 and Panda's online scanners picked up those infections. 

I would like the ability to create your own malware signatures within 2010. You could download malware for examanation, and once you are done, you can create malware signitures within 2010 and scan your computer for traces of that particular malware. Remember, you do not have to execute a file for it to infect your computer. 

=\

Respuestas

Kudos0

Re: 2010 Suggestion

Sometime SSR doesn't get around to signitures for every piece of malware under the sun. They say that SONAR should stop active malware in its tracks. I have not tested SONAR extensively; and I would rather not resort to the last line of defense which supposedly missed an icqbot and a virtumonde infection. However, NIS09 did not get around to a full system scan when NOD32 and Panda's online scanners picked up those infections. 

I would like the ability to create your own malware signatures within 2010. You could download malware for examanation, and once you are done, you can create malware signitures within 2010 and scan your computer for traces of that particular malware. Remember, you do not have to execute a file for it to infect your computer. 

=\
Kudos1 Stats

Re: 2010 Suggestion

Wow, Sounds like a great idea. But way too dangerous for people who really don't know what they are doing
"All that we are is the result of what we have thought"
Kudos0

Re: 2010 Suggestion

Stu wrote:

"Wow, Sounds like a great idea. But way too dangerous for people who really don't know what they are doing".

Stu, you are absolutely write.

It´s to risky !!

Kudos0

Re: 2010 Suggestion


Kurt wrote:

Stu wrote:

"Wow, Sounds like a great idea. But way too dangerous for people who really don't know what they are doing".

Stu, you are absolutely write.

It´s to risky !!


Well obviously there is a quarientine for restoration and a disclaimer and the feature is hidden as an "expert" or "advanced" feature mode option. 

And Norton has few False Positives.

Nothing to worry about. Unless you want to deliberatly damage your computer. 

=\
Kudos0

Re: 2010 Suggestion

I would appreiciate it if someone could explain this to the developers this and confirm if this feature will be included for the 2010 release.

This feature is invaluable. It will supplement SSR's work. 

What would really be great is if we could foward the details of our definitions to SSR and maybe they can officially include it in the definitions. And maybe there could be a place where we could upload our homemade definitions to share with other knowledgeable people. 

=\
Kudos0

Re: 2010 Suggestion


Tech0utsider wrote:

I would appreiciate it if someone could explain this to the developers this and confirm if this feature will be included for the 2010 release.

This feature is invaluable. It will supplement SSR's work. 

What would really be great is if we could foward the details of our definitions to SSR and maybe they can officially include it in the definitions. And maybe there could be a place where we could upload our homemade definitions to share with other knowledgeable people. 


The employeese are watching this as well. But I think they will agree that it could be way to dangerous. People arecurious. In this case that wouln't be a very good habit

"All that we are is the result of what we have thought"
Kudos0

Re: 2010 Suggestion

Well, make a disclaimer. And a quarientine. And bury the feature in the Adv. Mode. And if they still mess up their computer, it is their fault.
=\
Kudos0

Re: 2010 Suggestion

Hi TechOutsider,

I´m sorry that understand my reply the way you have.

Most consumer users wont take the responsebillity for the steps

they have taken.

They blame the producer of the product, given them a to large freedom.

Your suggestion could very well work in an exellent way in professionell

products.

Kudos0

Re: 2010 Suggestion

Well maybe it could be an add-on...that requires a complex registration process and a lengthy EULA/disclaimer 

or maybe Symantec could develop it just for me :)

Message Edited by Tech0utsider on 11-23-2008 10:05 PM
=\
Kudos0

Re: 2010 Suggestion

Hi TechOutsider,

I do understand what you mean, but most users want to play and have fun.

When the the fun ends, and a small step creates a serious and in some cases

dangerous situation, they wont recognize their own part in what has taken place.

Ptease, try to convince "or maybe Symantec could develop it just for me :) .

I wish good luck and take care !!

Kudos0

Re: 2010 Suggestion


Kurt wrote:

Ptease, try to convince "or maybe Symantec could develop it just for me :) .


Anyone with the skill to open up an app, determine if it is viral, then determine what strand or strands of code in that app are sufficient for a signature that at the same time wouldn't falsely flag a safe app should be writing their own software.

mijN360 2013, v.20.1.0.24; Win7 Pro, SP1 (32 bit), IE 9, Firefox 14, No other active securityware
Kudos0

Re: 2010 Suggestion


Tech0utsider wrote:

Well maybe it could be an add-on...that requires a complex registration process and a lengthy EULA/disclaimer 

or maybe Symantec could develop it just for me :)

Message Edited by Tech0utsider on 11-23-2008 10:05 PM

I will ask Tony if he could consider it ;)

"All that we are is the result of what we have thought"
Kudos0

Re: 2010 Suggestion


mijcar wrote:

Kurt wrote:

Ptease, try to convince "or maybe Symantec could develop it just for me :) .


Anyone with the skill to open up an app, determine if it is viral, then determine what strand or strands of code in that app are sufficient for a signature that at the same time wouldn't falsely flag a safe app should be writing their own software.


I don't think im there yet.

=\
Kudos0

Re: 2010 Suggestion

Outside of some of the features everyone has mentioned, I would like to see multiyear subscription's include upgrading to new versions of the product when available as long as the subscription is active. I'd also like to see Internet Security included within Norton Systemworks. Norton 360 lacks some of the features of buying Norton Internet Security and Norton Systemworks seperately.
Kudos0

Re: 2010 Suggestion


NVaZN wrote:
Outside of some of the features everyone has mentioned, I would like to see multiyear subscription's include upgrading to new versions of the product when available as long as the subscription is active.

You can already do this, free-of-Charge.

Thursday, November 21, 2013: The THREATCON was changed to Level 1: Normal | Tue., Nov. 05, 2013: Zero-Day Vulnerability: Microsoft Security Advisory 2896666 | Saturday, November 09, 2013: Cyber-Criminals Serve Up A Veritable Smorgasbord Of Threats For South Koreans | Wednesday, October 09, 2013: New Internet Explorer Zero-Day Targeted In Attacks Against Korea And Japan [C.V.E.-2013-3897]
Kudos0

Re: 2010 Suggestion

I must admit that I am very happy with NIS 2009, but what I would like to see in 2010 is better proactive detection, or rather protection.

Let us take Kaspersky for example. In their latest version, they have a feature (the name of which I have forgotten) which will limit the 'rights' (read, write, delete etc) of programs that it deems to be malicious. I believe this type of thing is very important as, even though NIS does have proactive protection, by the time it has detected something, it may be too late. (I have experienced this once, although that was within a period of 3 years, and let it be known that Norton must have stopped over 200 viruses in that period).

I would also like to see some protection of the GUI, i.e. against malicious programs shutting it down. I also believe that SIMPLE interactions with a user could be INVALUABLE proactive detection. for instance, imagine Norton asking "Did you just block access to your hard drive for a user XXXX?" - I mean, what legitimate program will do that? so by monitoring simple things, and asking simple questions such as the one I gave as an example, proactive protection could be vastly improved.

Also, I really believe that higher detection rates are a good trade off for a few false positives - I personally feel that an even higher should be offered - FOR THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO USE IT - that would offer even more advanced, aggresive and stricter heuristics and behavioural analysis. Obviously with the chance of more false-positives. but with the current false positives of Norton at something around 3%, who is really gonna notice if it goes up a bit? especially if you choose that option. oh, and a more comprehensive Help with more explanations as to how features work would be nice!

But overall I am very, very happy with NIS 2009!! and am a loyal Norton supporter!!

"The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creature that cannot."- Mark Twain
Kudos0

Re: 2010 Suggestion

Dear Forum Members,

I'm closing this thread from further posting considering that LanaK has initiated a new thread asking for your suggestions. For us to track your suggestions better, we would recommend posting your opinions and feature requests in the following thread.

http://community.norton.com/norton/board/message?board.id=nis_feedback&message.id=31283

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Cheers,

TomV

Norton Forums Moderator

Symantec Corporation

This thread is closed from further comment. Please visit the forum to start a new thread.