Don't you think users have to take a little bit of responsibility for keeping malware out of their computer. I don't think Symantec can be blamed for all the ills of the world. Even if they came up with a way to find an inactive, hidden threat in an apparently harmless download, my guess is that some users would ignore the warning, or deactivate Norton just so they could download it anyway.
If Norton started blocking too many things, people would be screaming blue murder that Symantec was interfering with their personal right to screw up if they wanted.
Education is a far better way to slow down the spread of these types of programs. Email threats are not nearly so effective since users were made aware of certain rules in the opening of attachments. It might be more effective to add information in a format similar to the EULA, that users had to scroll down, with warnings about certain threats via download. Some users might even read it
[edit: Updated Subject text.]
Message Edited by Tim_Lopez on 02-18-2009 05:19 PM
If Norton started blocking too many things, people would be screaming blue murder that Symantec was interfering with their personal right to screw up if they wanted.
Hmm, in that thing i wanna say they can keep an option to turn it off or on.
I agree education is a far better way to slow down the spread of these types of programs but still, its better to have security layer.
[edit: Updated Subject text.]
Message Edited by Tim_Lopez on 02-18-2009 05:20 PM
Here is the analysis of today at 19:00 (Spanish Hour) for registrydefender executable. Again, Symantec has to tighten protection in their security software.
Clearly, education in the use of the internet is essential for safe browsing, but when you buy a security software, is to feel protected by an extra layer to cover human error.
If you ever find or invent something that will perfectly limit the damage caused by human error, I would be extremely interested in buying shares. In fact, if you can find anything that can't be tinkered with, changed, modified, improved, turned off or turned on, installed wrong, or accidentally deleted, please share it with me.
To expect Symantec to do something with software that the divine can't pull off is unrealistic.
[edit: Updated Subject text.]
Message Edited by Tim_Lopez on 02-18-2009 05:20 PM
Obviously Delphinium , when I said that software should protect human ingenuity, I was referring to a security program must be designed by specialists with a very superior to what a person knows about computers. It is assumed that Symantec's developers are experts in highest level, and they know far more than any amateur to computers, so your program should protect the user who does not have sufficient knowledge to be informed of all the dangers of the internet and of the ways to avoid them. If Internet users turn to software developed by security experts, is because we are aware of our lack of training and this is why we insist that intensifies the quality of NIS'09 in terms of threat detection. Personally, I have come not a single virus on my computer (except that I left voluntarily come to do experiments), but normal people can not be paranoid like me. To ensure the safety of our pc's are the professionals who would gladly pay to protect us so effectively The day that we are all "hackers-security experts" , Symantec / KasperskyLabs / Sophos...etc. disappear because they do not need.
Greetings
[edit: Updated Subject text.]
Message Edited by Tim_Lopez on 02-18-2009 05:21 PM
After briefly reading this thread,I think Symantec has been pro active in regards to security and now by providing this Forum are educating users.It is here that I as a non tech user have picked up the most helpful tips on being safe on the net and with general PC security.I would not have learned this otherwise by reading a EULA(half the jargon leaves me in its wake!!!) Sorry delphinium.
I don't go downloading "stuff" just to see what happens and to test the effectiveness of my security product.I'm happy to let NIS2209 do its job which is what I think the software designers had in mind when they developed it.If I'm just browsing around and something happens then I do hope NIS will kick in.But to keep searching for stuff then finding that Norton is being slack is asking a bit much.BUT I am grateful for you guys who go out and submit these new nasties to Norton which in effect does give Norton a heads up on what's out there.( maybe a new forum for this sort of posting could be set up)
I don't mean to insult anyone it is just my thoughts!
After briefly reading this thread,I think Symantec has been pro active in regards to security and now by providing this Forum are educating users.It is here that I as a non tech user have picked up the most helpful tips on being safe on the net and with general PC security.I would not have learned this otherwise by reading a EULA(half the jargon leaves me in its wake!!!) Sorry delphinium.
I don't go downloading "stuff" just to see what happens and to test the effectiveness of my security product.I'm happy to let NIS2209 do its job which is what I think the software designers had in mind when they developed it.If I'm just browsing around and something happens then I do hope NIS will kick in.But to keep searching for stuff then finding that Norton is being slack is asking a bit much.BUT I am grateful for you guys who go out and submit these new nasties to Norton which in effect does give Norton a heads up on what's out there.( maybe a new forum for this sort of posting could be set up)
I don't mean to insult anyone it is just my thoughts!
Thanks for your thoughts, mo.
I agree with you. Symantec needs people who volunteer and search for malware that Niorton is not detecting yet. I do it myself, ;)
But you can't blame or attack Symantec because some malware is not detected yet. Besides that you can't blame the program as well for personal failures as well. it is not responsible for all the bad stuff some people are donwloading themselves
