I was reading about updating your "Norton Internet Security".
So, my question is: if I have another version (not 2012, but earlier), what advantages do I GAIN from updating my version? Of course, I am aware about advantages such as: more options to choose from etc. etc. etc.
Also, whether I update my version or not, do I have the same PROTECTION (virus wise and hacker wise) as I would with the newer (updated) version? If, for whatever reason I cannot update at the current time (due to resources and space constraint), will I be MORE vulnerable to hacker attacks and/or viruses?
"Nortons signature protection is quite a bit behind many other anti-virus programs. Norton is superb at prevention, but less good at detection, and signature detection alone can't protect very well against the threats of today, with 100,000 new and unique malware samples appearing every day"
How could Norton be supurb at prevention if it is not good at detecting malware? Do you mean that Norton is not good with on demand scans? If this is not correct, at what point in the process is it less good?
I was reading about updating your "Norton Internet Security".
So, my question is: if I have another version (not 2012, but earlier), what advantages do I GAIN from updating my version? Of course, I am aware about advantages such as: more options to choose from etc. etc. etc.
Also, whether I update my version or not, do I have the same PROTECTION (virus wise and hacker wise) as I would with the newer (updated) version? If, for whatever reason I cannot update at the current time (due to resources and space constraint), will I be MORE vulnerable to hacker attacks and/or viruses?
If we are talking older malware, then most antivirus programs have had time to add signatures for it, but if we are talking about new malware, then yes, most detections are not from signatures, but from reputation detection if the malicious file is downloaded or from SONAR if the file is run. If you have a folder full of new malicious files and right-click scan them, programs like Avira, BitDefender or Kaspersky for example will have a much higher detection rate in most cases. If, however, you look at the total package, and let Norton act the way it is designed, you will have many more layers of protection than basic signature detection, and Norton does not let more malware, new or old, through than other antivirus. If anything, Norton's way is the way of the future - no antivirus can keep up with malware by simply adding signatures for new malware as it appears. Generic signature detection helps some, but there is no way to keep up with malware just with signatures. I think Norton's approach with cloud reputation and good behaviour analysis is the way to go, along with decent signatures as well (Norton's signature detection isn't awful, just not top in the industry).
This isn't better or worse than signature detection, as long as the malware is prevented from infecting a system. And Norton does very well in prevention. Even if it is a completely brand new and unknown piece of malware. Which is probably why Symantec themselves have withdrawn from static on-demand scan tests and prefer "real-world" tests when it comes to showcasing the programs abilities.
Thank you for the explanation. You make a lot of sense.
Bombastus wrote:
If we are talking older malware, then most antivirus programs have had time to add signatures for it, but if we are talking about new malware, then yes, most detections are not from signatures, but from reputation detection if the malicious file is downloaded or from SONAR if the file is run. If you have a folder full of new malicious files and right-click scan them, programs like Avira, BitDefender or Kaspersky for example will have a much higher detection rate in most cases. If, however, you look at the total package, and let Norton act the way it is designed, you will have many more layers of protection than basic signature detection, and Norton does not let more malware, new or old, through than other antivirus. If anything, Norton's way is the way of the future - no antivirus can keep up with malware by simply adding signatures for new malware as it appears. Generic signature detection helps some, but there is no way to keep up with malware just with signatures. I think Norton's approach with cloud reputation and good behaviour analysis is the way to go, along with decent signatures as well (Norton's signature detection isn't awful, just not top in the industry).
This isn't better or worse than signature detection, as long as the malware is prevented from infecting a system. And Norton does very well in prevention. Even if it is a completely brand new and unknown piece of malware. Which is probably why Symantec themselves have withdrawn from static on-demand scan tests and prefer "real-world" tests when it comes to showcasing the programs abilities.
...and Kaspersky scores high in most of the tests, but for the recent months they have had several stability problems, license issues with “protection turned off”, application crashes, non-working modules etc. Reading user forums may be useful before deciding what IS system you select.
BTW, institutions testing AV/IS software should be aware of stability issues. And support quality.