Hi everyone :-D
Norton does not support scanning of non-standard (SSL) e-mail ports, and I think it would enhance computer and user security if future versions of Norton could scan non-standard e-mail ports :-)
I think that all email traffic should be scanned based on what the email program is using BUT not SSL traffic. Breaking into SSL traffic would possibly do more harm than good ever. But I do agree that over types of traffic used for email transportation should be scanned.
Hi everyone :-D
Norton does not support scanning of non-standard (SSL) e-mail ports, and I think it would enhance computer and user security if future versions of Norton could scan non-standard e-mail ports :-)
I fully support this potential feature as my ISP has just asked its users to change ports & begin using SSL so now incoming & outgoing mail is no longer automatically scanned. Currently I've lost one of the major reasons why I use Norton products so adding this feature to 2011 would bring me back to using NIS.
By now there are really so few ISP's that require ports 25 and 110 any more. These are really no longer considered as standard ports. If you are only going to scan with ports 25 and 110, then there aren't going to be very many users who will need this to be done. I remember being told by a Symantec staff person that email scanning would be done if you have to use different ports and that it would be in the 2011 products. I can't remember who it was, but they did say it would be in the 2011 products. With all the bad things that can be transmitted thru email, it needs to be done as it is coming into and out of the computer, not just when the file or attachment is going to be used. The protection needs to be a primary concern and not a secondary one. Thanks.
I can see where SSL tranmissions might be difficult if not impossible to scan, as the transmission is encypted, and can be encrypted in different ways.
Has there been any progress on this becoming part of 360 ?
I think a great idea, I hope to put this on the Symantec Norton 2011 to give more support and security !!!!!!!!!
Have to have this protection in e-mail POP3 and SMTP with or without SSL and HTTP / HTTPS as well, for the eset, kaspersky, mcafee has ............
What does it cost to Symantec developing a "virus that cater to all"
I hope that Norton 2011 has it !!!!!!!!
I agree that to every extent possible other email ports should be supported.
Allen
So many email programs use ports other than what Norton considers standard (110 and 25) that if that's all Norton is going to consider users are going to flee very rapidly. Maybe other ports are protected to some degree but unless the mail is scanned to reduce the amount of spam it's really not a major benefit to users. It would be one thing if only obscure mail programs didn't use these ports but Gmail and AOL just to name a couple don't use them either! No matter what ports our mail system uses we should be able to protect it in the same way we can ports 110 and 25.
Hello, the door of emails (hotmail configured with POP3 and SMTP) Windows Live Mail, the doors are POP3 (995) and SMTP (25), all ports with SSL On Yahoo (POP3 and SMTP) are the same But do not have SSL (yahoo Norton checks e-mails (and removed two of my virus) but not in hotmail, I think Symantec should have more respect for client (this way is very limits) so the client is up embarrassed to use services (e-mail and Symantec antivirus.) Please esforse Symantec is more to offer unlimited protection equal competitors. (Hopefully an update to NIS 2011 which you can scan e-mails SSL) but I'll be embarrassed to use the NIS in 2011 (very limited) if there is no mehores unfortunately I have to change the security software.
Remember to include Outlook connecting to Microsoft Exchange.
If it's worth scanning for Spam anywhere, it's worth it at work.
Has there been any more research on a resolution for this problem? Looking at the other thread where people are talking about this problem it is becoming quite prevalent among users and needs to be moved up the list towards resolution. More and more mail systems do not use ports 25 and 110 nor are they consistently using POP3!
which would be "Under Consideration" because version 2011 is now almost finished and I doubt very much that they want to release an update for the 2011 version is able to check e-mails with SSL.
The way is to change the security solution!
The more we ask that they do not pose!
Really wanted in the 2011 version AntiSpam supports up Windows Live Mail (which is inslatado the PC and configured in POP3 and SMTP)
The cost of Symantec invest in this development?
I believe that many users will surely have been very pleased (to know that Symantec is worried about his safety in any form) in the email.
Could you elaborate scanning with SLL (thus would have greater security in e-mails Hotmail, Gmail and others)
What does it cost?
Providing security than its competitors already ofereção!
equal to Eset
"By default, ESET Smart Security and ESET NOD32 Antivirus check the POP3 protocol on TCP port 110 and the HTTP protocol on TCP ports 80, 8080 and 3128 for Threats to your system.
ESET Smart Security and ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4.0 scan SSL traffic. ESET Smart Security / ESET NOD32 Antivirus 3.0 scan not the SSL traffic, even if the TCP port listed above has Been manually entered.
After encrypted traffic has Been decrypted, it is Will Be scanned by the antivirus components Threats of ESET Smart Security / ESET NOD32 Antivirus. If you are not using the standard port for email, email messages are scanned by the antivirus still component as soon as They touch the system, Which Will protect you from any Threats. "
That way customers can use their e-mails regardless of the type of email you'll know you're protected!
Please Symantec!
I'd like to see this implemented as well. My ISP stopped using port 25 quite awhile back.
--Ron
Let me add this:
I too, feel that this should be made a top priority!
Please include Ports UDP 465 and TCP 995.
Thanks - Atomic Blast
Here is yet another person in support of this feature. My hopes aren't too high since this thread was started over two years ago! Not sure why Norton can't do this when all the other competitors were able to figure it out.