Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio sem nec elit. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Vestibulum id ligula porta felis euismod semper. Donec ullamcorper nulla non metus auctor fringilla. Aenean lacinia bibendum nulla sed consectetur. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Cras mattis consectetur purus sit amet fermentum. Morbi leo risus, porta ac consectetur ac, vestibulum at eros. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Etiam porta sem malesuada magna mollis euismod. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio sem nec elit. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Aenean eu leo quam. Pellentesque ornare sem lacinia quam venenatis vestibulum. Curabitur blandit tempus porttitor. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis.
Does anyone have views on this?
Of course Signatures should stay because:
- Norton 08 had an 18% in the proactive test...while avira had 72% and NOD32 had 74%..............................
- Signatures prevent false positives. Its always nice having an (almost) definite reference
- Can you name any reason why you would trust Norton without signitures?
I thought I saw this thread earlier.
I believe it would stay. It is getting less but still there are lot's of malware around there which won't be catched proactive. It still neds some signatures. maybe there will be a different way in signatures
If symantec took away this, I would change company, or just stick woth Norton that had Anti-Virus Signatures. So, yes, I think it should stay.
Would just like to bring this to the Attention of Users who are un-aware of this Thread; feel free to Post. 
sorry boys, not as well versed as you all are. What is Signature-based Detection?
The "signature" is that part of the computer code sufficient to make the virus recognizable. Metaphorically, it is kind of like a cross between DNA and fingerprints. Every AV product has a database of signatures that it then checks for in each file it examines. That's signature-based detection.
But some viruses mutate sufficiently that the old signature just doesn't identify it any more. And there are always new viruses with no recognizable signature yet. So what a good AV product then does is look at the behavior of that product. Actually, what is looks at is anything that appears to be attacking vital computer components (making unexpected modifications to the registry, trying to add to or modify the contents of fundamental software. This is heuristics-based detection. The higher the level the user chooses, the more restrictions Norton places on allowable behavior. Because this is only "guessing", the user is most often involved, generally by being presented with a screen describing the suspect and the behavior that makes it a suspect; the user could then presented with a recommendation by Norton (Block once, block always, allow once, allow always, wait and see -- these used to be the options for Norton's Firewall and I imagine they have to be pretty much the same for any user choices) and asked to make a choice. My description of the exact behavior is shaky because my own settings is at default and I try to control circumstances by the care I exercise in going to sites and what I do when I get there.
NY1986 wrote:
sorry boys, not as well versed as you all are. What is Signature-based Detection?
Clearly, you didn't read the very First Post in the Thread... ;)
Would like to bring this to the Attention of New Users or those who have not yet Viewed their Views but have meant to. Anyone: Feel free to Post.
You just stated the same thing in another thread.
However, I hear that Norton bumped up heruistic detection to ~41%; an unreleased beta May last year.